Ce

XS

a

ARRA

KCCM

Oaatc

mtts

wett

0d

Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

orporate social responsibility as a legitimate concern for Chinesenterprises: An analysis of media depictions

i Liu ∗, Sixue Jia, Fei Lichool of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 21 January 2011eceived in revised form 4 May 2011ccepted 24 May 2011

eywords:orporate social responsibilityhinese enterprisesedia depiction

a b s t r a c t

This study interprets rationales for greater corporate attention to societal needs, as outlinedin the mediated public discourse in China. Findings suggest that (1) there are multiple linesof reasoning regarding the adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and (2) socialinvolvement is advocated because CSR constitutes an ideal topic for the articulation offaith in what means success in business ventures. This study offers a culturally informedexplication of the instrumental and ethical arguments for CSR.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A deadly earthquake measured at 8.0Ms occurred at 14:28 (GMT + 8) on May 12, 2008, in the Sichuan province of China.n the same day, a real estate developer contributed RMB 2 million (around USD 0.3 million) as disaster relief to the ravagedrea. In quick response, several posts uploaded onto certain online forums opined that a donation of that amount was notppropriate for a company with an annual sales revenue of RMB 100 billion—and that the company’s president appearedo be too stingy. A list of corporate donors that had contributed more than RMB 10 million was attached to the posts as aomparison. Three days later, the president responded to the criticism by asserting the following on his online blog:

Disasters are frequent in China. Philanthropy for disaster relief is a regular requirement. Enterprises should donate ina way that allows them to sustain their contribution rather than being shackled in the future . . . In our company, thereis a reminder that in fundraising, regular employees should not give more than RMB 10. The purpose is to ensure thatphilanthropy does not become a burden . . . I think that RMB 2 million is a proper amount for us to give.1

The “net friends” were outraged by this reply and reacted in anger. On May 21, the company held an impromptu generaleeting, during which it was decided that the company would allocate RMB 100 million to help in the re-construction of

he disaster-hit area. This decision, according to one newspaper, was described by some shareholders as “paying a ransomo rescue shareholder interests from a ‘moral kidnap’ by the president and his management team, who are experiencingevere pressure of public opinion.”2

Several aspects of this instance of donation are worth a closer look, particularly in terms of its implications on theays in which business relates to stakeholders. The resolution, in which the company aligned its actions to the mediated

xpectations of the public, showed that societal sentiment may play an important role in reshaping corporate approacho social welfare. The donation controversy, however, occurred at a time of extreme emotions. In this regard, consider theainted milk scandal, which occurred less than two months after companies had generously donated monetary and tangible

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 1062788173; fax: +86 1062772941.E-mail address: liuxi@sem.tsinghua.edu.cn (X. Liu).

1 This quotation in the original Chinese and other background information on the incident are available at http://sz.focus.cn/ztdir/wangshijuankuanmen/.2 Zhang, X. (2009, June 6). Donation of RMB 100 million approved with majority votes at Wanke. The Beijing News.

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.05.002

208 X. Liu et al. / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216

resources to earthquake-afflicted towns and villages: baby formulae and milk products manufactured by 22 companies werefound to be adulterated with the industrial chemical melamine and an estimated 300,000 babies were affected in China. Dothe scale and the plainly deceptive nature of the problem indicate that the public’s demand for fair and responsible behaviorfrom businesses is usually low when they themselves and their corporate neighbors are both maintaining a routine pace oflife? In a more general sense, can we say that corporate social responsibility (CSR), which embraces issues such as corporategiving and product safety in its conceptualization, is absent from the daily societal agenda in China?

Our study regards mass media as a platform for various social forces to express their own opinions and negotiate mean-ings; thus, media representations are the windows to societal expectations. The study examines opinion pieces in Chinesenewspapers to determine the ways in which rationales for greater corporate attention to societal needs have been elaboratedin the newspaper-mediated public discourse, how such elaboration has developed over time, and what the pro-CSR discourseindicates about the cultural elements related to business activities. Our findings suggest that the discursive foundation ofadvocating the adoption of CSR has been constituted along multiple and, at times, contradictory lines of reasoning, in termsof either thought or activities or both. Upon closer inspection, it appears that socially responsible policies and programs havebeen advocated not out of an appreciation for their intrinsic appeal, either in principle or in practice, but because CSR merelyoffers an ideal topic for a discussion allowing the expression of one’s faith in what meant success in business ventures. Thesevaried visions—some deeply rooted in traditional Chinese culture, some inspired by the global forces penetrating the localmarket, and others merely an arena wherein the global and the local meet and interact—would continue to shape not onlyChinese society’s perception of CSR initiatives by corporations but also the manner in which corporations carry out suchinitiatives.

It should be noted that although the literature in English offered the basic conceptual framework for this study, our aimwas not to test the findings of this literature against a Chinese context or merely pigeonhole the findings in China into a gridof Western origin in order to define the “gap.” Nevertheless, it was the existence of such a gap (i.e., the lack of updates onCSR in the Chinese market) which encouraged us to conduct the current study. In fact, in terms of geography and culture,China is at a great distance from where the core discourse on CSR has been constructed and negotiated. On the other hand,the momentum of globalization and its impacts have led to an irrevocable connection between the Chinese economy andthe rest of the world. As Hooghiemstra (2000) pointed out, institutional pressures at both the international and the nationallevels are still significant in lifting business as a collective onto a socially responsible track. In that case, how has CSR beenreceived in a dynamic milieu like the Chinese society, with some of its elements still clinging to the past, some riding theglobal tide, and some still hesitating between the two paths? By focusing on the newspaper-mediated advocacy of CSR inChina, this study attempts to examine the state of the institution of mediated public discourse, which may impel enterprisesto become more socially responsible in a location where the global and local forces encounter and interplay.

1. Conceptual framework

1.1. Rationale for corporate social responsibility

Researchers taking a wide social perspective to CSR tend to agree that companies should voluntarily act in a manner desir-able from the standpoint of the “constituent groups in society other than stockholders” (Jones, 1991). The ultimate concernhere is two-fold: (1) to mitigate the detrimental impacts of business operations on the social and ecological environment and(2) to encourage companies to assume a more active role in social development and the sustainability of natural resources.

CSR advocates can be classified into two major groups: those who approach it from an economic viewpoint and thosewho consider it from an ethical viewpoint (Hartman, Rubin, & Dhanda, 2007). The economic view appeals to the strategic orextrinsic motive (Graafland & van de Ven, 2006) in managerial decision-making, i.e., CSR policies and programs are expectedto pay off by giving CSR-oriented companies a competitive advantage. In contrast, those who stress the ethical side of CSRregard it as a moral duty of business to make an effort to “further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and thatwhich is required by law” (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001, p. 117). According to this viewpoint, the rationale for the acceptanceand implementation of CSR shifts from the self-interest of a business to its intrinsic obligation to the community in whichit operates. This argument is based on the concept of a company as a corporate citizen, which, as Carroll (1998) suggests,not only has an ethical responsibility to do the right thing but also should contribute to philanthropic causes relevant tothe company’s stakeholders. From the perspective of the stewardship theory (Donaldson & Davis, 1991), there is a moralimperative for managers to “do the right thing,” without regard to how such decisions will affect the company’s financialperformance (McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006).

When it comes to everyday CSR practice, three approaches can be distinguished in the literature. Some companies havedeveloped positive strategic views on CSR (Graafland & van de Ven, 2006), based on the economic argument regarding therelationship between CSR efforts and the market performance of a company. This view gives rise to two different approachesto CSR programs: the institutionalized approach and the promotional approach (Pirsch, Gupta, & Grau, 2007). In the institu-tionalized approach, a commitment to socially responsible actions forms the central idea underlying company policies and

initiatives. This approach reflects a normative standpoint with regard to stakeholders—i.e., the needs and demands of allstakeholders are perceived to be legitimate and thus are granted equal attention from the company (Jones & Wicks, 1999).The promotional approach, however, regards stakeholders from an instrumental viewpoint, targeting only those stakeholdergroups whose behaviors and attitudes play a critical role in the economic performance of a company.

ts(

1

emodCt2

sscaaosr

bsfCvoiI

1

C1wi“Atr

aisf

liep

aitom

X. Liu et al. / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216 209

In addition to the strategic concerns behind CSR efforts, a moral motive is found to underlie certain companies’ atti-udes and actions related to CSR. In other words, these companies invest in socially responsible policies and programsimply because their business culture regards contributing to social well-being and social development as a moral obligationGraafland & van de Ven, 2006).

.2. Corporate social responsibility and societal expectations

The business community’s appreciation of the relevance of CSR policies and programs seems to be subject to the societalxpectations of socially responsible performance as expressed in certain global standards, public policies, activist move-ents, and academic and public discussions attracting wide participation. Within a particular country, a company’s felt

bligation to assume responsibility beyond the maximization of its profits might fluctuate in response to the changingynamics of the social climate of that country (Rozanova, 2006). When the company expands beyond the national borders,SR activities might be undertaken to appeal to local concerns (Mohan, 2006). From a comparative vantage point, the rolehat business is expected to play as a socially responsible agent varies across regions and national cultures (Doh & Guay,006).

Burchell and Cook (2006) have described the process by which societal expectations shape companies’ CSR agenda astakeholder management through engagement and dialogue. To begin with, the parameters of the business–society relation-hip are neither dominated by some business organizations nor controlled by the business community, in general. On theontrary, the behaviors and strategies of corporate citizens are constantly scrutinized, questioned, and even opposed by socialctors located outside the companies. Societal expectations can be formally articulated as macro initiatives, frameworks,nd guidelines that instruct companies’ CSR activities. Such constructs become woven into the institutional environmentf a given societal context when they are widely held to represent a universal definition of CSR (Boxenbaum, 2006). Underuch circumstances, satisfying these institutionalized expectations is not a matter of voluntary choice for companies butather a duty that is taken for granted.

Given the cultural and institutional distinction in societal concerns pertaining to responsible business practices, itecomes necessary to take a closer look at the situation of CSR in the particular nation under study, in order to under-tand CSR in the local context (McWilliams et al., 2006). This study chooses to focus on the newspaper-mediated rationalesor greater CSR—i.e., contentions expressed through major Chinese newspapers that Chinese enterprises should integrateSR into their daily practice—as a significant element in societal expectations in China. In line with Carroll’s (1999) obser-ation that the exploration of CSR started with its advocacy and gradually evolved into a discussion of practice models, it isur assumption that as an innovative management concept, CSR will be integrated into the societal agenda in China amidstts efforts to develop an open market economy. Then the question arises: who defines the Chinese societal agenda on CSR?n order to address this issue, the present study draws upon studies in mass communication.

.3. Media and societal expectations

It has been pointed out that mass media define reality for the audience in a social learning process (Takeshita, 1997).entral to the formation of such an effect are two related capabilities of media coverage: agenda setting (McCombs & Shaw,972; McCombs & Reynolds, 2002) and framing (Entman, 1993; Scheufele, 1999). Agenda setting refers to the situation inhich the amount of attention given by the media to a particular object helps the public to determine that object’s relative

mportance to society in general as well as to form perceptions or images of the object (McCombs & Ghanem, 2001). The wordobject,” in this context, means an issue, topic, or thing regarding which we have an opinion (Carroll & McCombs, 2003).genda setting occurs at two levels. At the first level, the salience of objects is transferred from the media to the public, i.e.,

he public is told what to think about. At the second level, the relative salience of the object’s attributes is organized andelevant arguments are presented, allowing the public to decide what to think about the object and from what perspective.

Framing also deals with salience. According to Entman (1993), “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived realitynd make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causalnterpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (p. 52). Thus, in a sociologicalense, the second-level agenda setting occurs through framing, or, as pointed out by Cutbirth, Shapiro, and Williams (1991),raming constitutes a crucial variable in the agenda-setting process.

In that case, why are some particular aspects of a particular topic described in a particular manner? In the light of socialinguistics, the ultimate driving force behind the set agenda and its framing is ideological positioning, or the negotiation ofdeological positions held among various “socially, economically and politically situated” (Fowler, 1991, p. 10) internal andxternal stakeholders for media coverage. Thus, media portrayals are not neutral presentations but representations from aarticular ideological perspective.

These theories suggest that although media influence what the public thinks, media agenda is not necessarily the publicgenda. Indeed, various constituents of the public, in an effort to have their voice heard, might carve a place for themselves

n the media. We contend that newspaper-mediated CSR advocacy reflects CSR-related expectations of those societal forceshat are powerful enough to make inroads into the media. In a sense, these expectations constitute the basic parametersf the public opinion on CSR issues in that CSR is a specialty concept rather than a layman’s term within the reach of theass public. In other words, newspapers, or for that matter interpretive frames adopted by newspaper articles, are likely

210 X. Liu et al. / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216

to perform an informing function for the general public on the issue of CSR. This study aims to dissect the mediated publicopinion milieu of CSR in China by addressing three research questions:

(1) What rationales are outlined by Chinese newspapers to position CSR as a legitimate concern for Chinese enterprises?(2) How have the mediated rationales changed over time?(3) Why are the mediated rationales expressed the way they are?

2. Methods

In order to examine the rationales for CSR that were represented in the Chinese print media, we applied thematic analysisto commentary items addressing CSR-related issues collected from 19 newspapers in circulation on the Chinese mainland(Table 1). Data were sourced from multiple media outlets so that the analysis would reveal the real texture of negotiatedsocietal expectations as represented across media organizations.

Media content was gleaned over a time period ending at December 2008. Since the purpose of this study was to discernthe emerging mediated societal interest in CSR, we did not specify a starting date for data collection. The original searchtargeted 11 major national newspapers and 10 business newspapers. We determined the scope by consulting with a veteranmedia worker as to each newspaper’s stature in terms of readership among social constituents with influence over andinterest in business and economic activities in the Chinese market. In setting this standard, we did not intend to focus purelyon elite newspapers. On the contrary, consistent with our argument in the previous section, we assumed that the societalforces promoting CSR would be most interested in these newspapers as a platform for communication. Key-word searches ofMajor Chinese Newspapers; a Chinese database carrying full-text newspaper articles published since 2000; were performedusing the Mandarin Chinese equivalent of “corporate social responsibility,” “social responsibility,” “enterprise and socialresponsibility,” and “enterprise and society.”

The search results could be classified into four categories: news, feature stories, executive interviews, and opinion piecesin various forms. A review of the sample news items indicated that they tended to be factual in nature, offering littleelaboration on why socially responsible strategy and behaviors were legitimate concerns for business. Considering the goalof our study, we decided not to include the news category in the final analysis. The categories of feature stories and executiveinterviews were also excluded from the data set, but for different reasons. Despite the fact that neither businesses in Chinanor Chinese journalists are inherently corrupt, it is not uncommon for the former to have some influence over the latter’swork. Allowing for some exceptions, in-depth coverage featuring either a company or its high-ranking officers is usuallya thinly disguised, company-sponsored media placement and image-building tool. Such media pieces are more likely tocontain coordinated messages serving the company’s promotional objectives than to express opinions from the viewpointof some societal agenda.

In total, the selection for final examination consisted of 115 opinion pieces dealing with the general topic of CSR collectedfrom 19 newspapers. The decision as to which of the above four categories of search results should be considered for finalexamination reflects a process of purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002). In such a process, the focus is on the selection of

information-rich materials, the study of which would shed light on researcher concerns. In other words, the 115 selectedarticles are not representative of the contents of the Chinese print media in which CSR was somehow mentioned. Nonetheless,as a theoretical sample (Corbin & Strauss, 1990), they are representative of the issues to be researched.

Table 1List of source newspapers.

Title in English Title in Chinese Pinyin

1 China Business Zhong guo jing ying bao2 China Business Herald Zhong guo shang bao3 China Business Times Zhong hua gong shang shi bao4 China Economic Herald Zhong guo jing ji dao bao5 China Economic Times Zhong guo jing ji shi bao6 Economic Daily Jing ji ri bao7 Economic Information Daily Jing ji can kao bao8 Economic Observer Jing ji guan cha bao9 First Financial Daily Di yi cai jing ri bao

10 Guangming Daily Guang ming ri bao11 Liberation Daily Jie fang ri bao12 Nanfang Daily Nan fang ri bao13 Southern Weekly Nan fang zhou mo14 People’s Daily Ren min ri bao15 Southern Weekly Nan fang zhou mo16 21 Century Business Herald Er shi yi shi ji jing ji bao dao17 Wenhui Daily Wen hui bao18 Xinmin Evening News Xin min wan bao19 Yangcheng Evening News Yang cheng wan bao

X. Liu et al. / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216 211

Table 2Rationales for corporate social responsibility in Chinese newspapers.

Greater attention to corporate social responsibilityArgument 1 Enhances brand competitivenessArgument 2 Allows participation in the global market

Underlying reasoning (1): access to global supply and value chainUnderlying reasoning (2): opportunity to catch up with the West

Argument 3 Is the right thing to doUnderlying reasoning (1): obligation and reciprocityUnderlying reasoning (2): emergent social expectations

Focal issue a: social consensusFocal issue b: harmonious socialist country

oewacot

sdusa

3

aeaiaomtfdd

3

adpcsdt

F

Focal issue c: public scrutiny

By following the inductive approach to thematic analysis (Patton, 2002), we expected the themes to progressively emergever the course of interaction with the data, as we gained a more contextualized understanding of the central topic. Wexamined the articles through multiple readings, taking detailed notes and making careful comparisons. Particular attentionas paid to assertions that Chinese enterprises should integrate CSR into their daily operations. Wherever we detected such

n assertion, we tried to glean the logic behind it. Moreover, in order to determine how media representation of CSR hadhanged over time, we examined the frequency of articulation of each identified theme in each of the nine years covered byur study. In the case of media accounts that expressed more than one theme in a synergistic manner, we took into accounthe major theme to reflect the trend.

As previously indicated, arguments for CSR have been extensively discussed in the Western literature. However, thistudy intended neither to map the Chinese media discourse onto a framework of Western origin nor to merely offer aescriptive account of a Chinese case that indicates otherwise. In fact, Western theories provide a sort of sensitizing lens fors to “ground” the discerned parallels, tensions, and even contradictions in the advocacy of CSR in the Chinese economic andocio-political context. Through this strategy, the realities of contemporary Chinese rationales for CSR can be interpretednd the original Western framework can thereby be extended.

. Findings and discussion

Barring a few exceptions, the examined opinion pieces uniformly asserted that Chinese enterprises should view CSRs a legitimate concern to be addressed in their business processes. Three arguments (Table 2) were prominent in thexamination. In the first argument, the social sphere was portrayed as a place that offered a wider space for branding,llowing the company to become more competitive. The second argument highlighted a different milieu of public opinionn the global market in calling for socially responsible business policies and behaviors, while the central theme of the thirdrgument was that businesses should simply do the right thing. From a longitudinal standpoint, the third argument—thatf doing the right thing—was the most dominant. In our view, these arguments, made either separately or in a synergizedanner through a single media account, displayed several parallel, yet contradictory archetypes of successful enterprises

hat were still undergoing transformation and adaptation as China continued its pursuit of economic development. In theollowing sections, we will first explore how each argument was articulated, then show how the rationales for CSR haveeveloped over time, and finally contextualize the articulations into social and cultural sentiments in order to offer a texturedelineation of the societal perceptions of business ventures and activities.

.1. Becoming more competitive

Quite a few media accounts claimed that socially responsible corporate behaviors connect with market success. Theirrguments are based on the understanding that outperforming competitors in the era of market economy requires a totallyifferent approach to doing business. The competition, which was portrayed as “revolving around pricing [and] quality ofroducts and services in the past,” is “now all about possessing a brand that is embedded in some strong and rich corporateulture.”3 Some articles even stepped beyond the vocabularies of brand-building and claimed that the consideration of

4

ocial issues should “form an important element in corporate strategy,” the implementation of which would enable theevelopment of “soft competence,”5 a “real competitive advantage”6. In fact, a 2008 China Economic Times article suggestedhat businesses “ignoring social responsibilities would lose the game and be weeded out of the market”; therefore, paying

3 Xie, J. (2006, April 17). Competitiveness of a brand and corporate social responsibility. Liberation Daily.4 Xie, J. (2005, March 15). Social responsibility is a touchstone for enterprises. China Economic Times.5 Li, J. (2007, March 15). Entrepreneurs’ responsibility in building a harmonious society. Wenhui Daily.6 Su, Y. (2008, August 21). Fundamental situation of corporate social responsibility: A comprehensive performance of responsibility toward consumers.

irst Financial Daily.

212 X. Liu et al. / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216

back to society through active participation in the social sphere was described as “a necessary devotion that makes anenterprise in the long run.”7

3.2. Participating in the global market

Some media pieces looked at the observance of social responsibility by Chinese enterprises through the perspective ofaccess to the global market. In this context, the global market was described as a location for a game with “well establishedand widely observed rules.”8 As such, the global market was held as a witness to the evolution of the ways in which CSRwas discussed and practiced. According to a 2004 China Business Herald commentary:

The dramatic turnaround in multinationals’ stance toward corporate social responsibility was not driven by someinherent sense of morality but out of the necessity emerging at a time when the means and process of manufacturingare globalised. Multinationals are now driving the performance of corporate social responsibility only in a pursuit forcontinuously improved efficiency.9

Obviously, media accounts addressing the world context were aware of the historical aspects of the general globalenvironment for commercial ventures and the political issues in certain frequently cited trade disputes involving Chinesesuppliers and SA8000. Nonetheless, they seemed to agree that China and Chinese businesses should undertake substantialmeasures to implement the concept of CSR. Two lines of reasoning were put forward.

The first line of reasoning reflected a pragmatic and reactive mentality: the articles urged changes in line with theinternational standards for CSR because Chinese enterprises would otherwise be unable to respond to “an entrenched realitythat our country (China) is now facing and cannot escape.”10 Paradoxically, the decision to take action in response to CSRexpectations was still regarded as contingent upon the “audience” involved in the international setting.

The second line of reasoning was informed by a self-reflection that revealed a problematic picture as to how Chineseenterprises, as a collective, interfaced with society in profit-making efforts. Here, pressure from the West was depicted as anopportunity for China and its business sector to “catch up with”11 their Western counterparts, be they macro-institutionalarrangements or specific business organizations.

One weakness that the media articles noted in Chinese enterprises was an industry-level scarcity of attention to societalissues and needs. Chinese enterprises were also thought to be deterred by a lack of management skills relating to socialprograms. In either case, it was acknowledged that “most enterprises’ efforts in attending to social concerns are still in avery initial stage”12 and that China is in need of “a full set of sound standards and policies . . . to appraise the performanceof corporate social responsibility.”13

Given this perceived gap, most articles applauded the enforcement of international standards as a valuable catalyst foran overhaul of the way in which business related to society in China. The projected changes generated through greaterinternational exposure were even considered equal to changing one’s lifestyle, as suggested in the following quote:

SA8000 is just like the norm that you need to dress properly to get into a five-star hotel. Chinese enterprises mustpolish their shoes and wear a tie so as to gain the chance to enjoy the banquet in international markets. It is uselessto merely complain that boutique hotels discriminate against the poor, unless we limit our goals to eating Chinesepancake-onion rolls.14

In this light, embracing CSR was presented as a worthy ambition in the face of economic globalization.

3.3. Doing what is right

The media accounts also presented the idea that addressing societal needs was the right thing for Chinese enterprises todo. However, the definition of what was right varied: some discussions resorted to the notion of obligation and reciprocity,while others highlighted the emergent societal expectations regarding the role that business should play in society. In theformer case, corporate attention to social issues was regarded as an indicator of conforming to certain universally acceptedprinciples of fairness and justice. Protection and promotion of social well-being were proclaimed as legitimate goals parallel

7 Lin, Y. (2008, August 7). An economic analysis of performance of social responsibility. China Economic Times.8 Jiao, Z. (2005, December 5). The absence of corporate social responsibility as seen in the frequently occurring accidents in the mining industry. China

Economic Times.9 Xia, S. (2004, October 12). Enterprises should also perform social responsibility. China Business Herald.

10 Gao, C. (2005, January 24). Corporate social responsibility is a demand informed with morality. China Economic Times.11 Xia, S. (2004, October 12). Enterprises should also perform social responsibility. China Business Herald.12 Zhong, H. (2008, November 11). Practice corporate social responsibility in three steps. People’s Daily.13 Wang, L. (2008, April 27). No excuse from corporate social responsibility for privately owned (Chinese) enterprises. Wenhui Daily.14 Lan, H. (2006, September 1). Treat SA8000 calmly. China Economic Herald.

X. Liu et al. / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216 213

ts

efat

otfmo

sBnp

3

odbtob

3

p

dws

Fig. 1. Trends in CSR advocacy from 2001 to 2008.

o the realization of investors’ interests, 15 because “enterprises come into existence and operate only by consuming certainocial resources.”16 The principle of reciprocity was evoked mainly in the discussion of privately owned enterprises.

In the case of societal expectation, being socially responsible was perceived to be the right course of action for Chinesenterprises because it was the imperative set forth by the emergent yet irreversible public ethos. This idea is expressed in theollowing quotation: “The development and progress of the time necessarily imposes the performance of social responsibilitys a requirement for enterprises.” As to the change in the social environment leading to the increasing legitimacy of CSR,hree elements were mentioned in the media accounts.

The first element was the “social consensus”17 or “collective calling of all walks of life”18 in the more advanced stagef economic development that “enterprises should adjust directions in development and new regulations should be seto define the order in the market.”19 The second element was the “scientific outlook on development”20 and “the overallramework of building a harmonious socialist society,”21 which is essentially about reducing business–societal conflicts as

uch as possible. In this particular scenario, contributing to social welfare was believed to “represent the concrete actionsf putting the scientific outlook on development into effect.”22

The third element defining a new social environment in which social issues become legitimate considerations was exces-ive public scrutiny. In describing the situation in which public scrutiny of business could be easily stimulated, a 21 Centuryusiness Herald piece of 2004 vividly asserted, “The honeymoon in which enterprises might expand any way they want isow over.”23 Commitment to social needs was thus “no longer a show external to the management process but a necessaryortion of an enterprise’s measures of preventing risks and enhancing managerial performance.”24

.4. Corporate social responsibility: trends in advocacy

The first pro-CSR opinion piece appeared in 2001. During the following nine years leading up to 2008, which is the yearur data collection ends, the mediated rationales for greater corporate attention to the social responsibility of business haveiversified. As shown in Fig. 1, CSR first received attention because of its perceived power in building competitive brands,ut over time, it was advocated primarily because corporate contribution to societal well-being was regarded as the righthing for a business to do. A closer look indicates that most of those who upheld the latter argument adopted a normativer ethical view on the relationship between business and society, i.e., business is obligated to contribute back to the societyy addressing societal needs.

.5. Corporate social responsibility and success in business ventures

Most media accounts did not define CSR or clarify the exact contents of such responsibility when it was put into managerialractice. Some articles used CSR as a general concept, as if the term in Chinese was itself expressive enough to clarify the

15 Li, Y. (2008, March 5). Corporate goals and corporate social responsibility. Wenhui Daily.16 Guo, J. (2007, October 11). Social responsibilities of modern enterprises. People’s Daily.17 Xiao, W. (2005, July 18). What kinds of social responsibility should an enterprise perform? Wenhui Daily.18 Yuan, G. (2005, May 09). There is no escape from corporate social responsibility. People’s Daily.19 Wang, X., & Lv, F. (2006, July 21). Corporate social responsibility and the healthy development of privately owned enterprises. China Economic Times.20 According to Baidu Encyclopedia (retrievable at http://baike.baidu.com), the scientific outlook on development refers to “an approach to reform andevelopment [that] observes the principles of people-oriented, all-round, coordinated, and sustainable development.” The initial articulation of the termas at the Third Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in October 2003. “The construction of a harmonious

ocialist society” was an important element of the “scientific outlook on development.”21 Wang, M. (2005, December 8). Corporate social responsibility should be stressed to build a harmonious society. China Economic Times.22 Lin, M. (2008, August 7). Power of responsibility. Economic Daily.23 Zheng, Q. (2004, December 23). Corporate citizenship in China: Victory in the uncertain era. 21 Century Business Herald.24 Zeng, G. (2008, October 13). Capital that drives the practice of corporate citizenship. 21 Century Business Herald.

214 X. Liu et al. / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216

labolGlacoL

Instrumental

Ethical

Comp etiti ve-ness Market

Acc ess

Obligation andRecipro city

HarmoniousSocialist Country

Pub licScrut iny

Social Consensus

Catching Up

Fig. 2. Rationales for CSR and success in business ventures.

meaning. More often, however, the performance of social responsibility was closely tied to a particular type of behavior, e.g.,donations or actions taken to address a social concern such as food safety. Given that many media accounts were written inreaction to a current affair involving business, this narrow depiction of CSR was probably not surprising. This tendency toanchor advocacy to specific scenarios of the business–stakeholder relationship or conflict, however, might appear limitedand even problematic if measured against the Western view of CSR as both an academic discipline and a social institution. Inour interpretation, such usage of an “imported concept”25 could be better understood if one examines the notion of ultimatesuccess in business ventures that was embedded in the articulation of each mediated rationale for CSR. Whenever an opinionpiece mentioned CSR and somehow defined its scope in relation to the occurrence of a case of corporate wrongdoing or thediscussion of some general business issue, it was probably not because the author really knew what the concept meantin its origin and application but because he or she believed that the performance of social responsibility would transformbusiness, and for that matter even Chinese business enterprises, and eliminate the adverse social consequences of corporatebehaviors. In this sense, CSR was relevant not because of its own power and attractiveness in principle or in practice, butmore as a topic, which was broad enough and could be leveraged to express one’s viewpoint on how to manage businesssuccessfully.

As indicated in Fig. 2, visions of business success implicit in the advocacy of CSR varied along two dimensions: boundaryof competition (the horizontal axis) and the business–society relationship (the vertical axis). In the global market argument,perceived success in business came from operating an enterprise that could make its mark in the world market throughadopting CSR standards, like the entrenched global players. For some authors, meritorious businesses are those that try hardto satisfy international requirements and become viable participants in the global market. For others, real achievement inbusiness is accomplished only when a Chinese enterprise manages to compete alongside and as an equal with its highlyadmired Western counterparts. In either case, socially responsible policies and actions were regarded as practical behaviors,as their absence signaled a hurdle to China’s global ambition, whether reactive, such as a labor-intensive manufacturer’ssurvival, or long-term and proactive, such as a competitive local brand’s yearning for world leadership. “Although the demandfor social responsibility differs across countries in different eras in terms of development, certain fundamental principlesfor morality have always existed without disruption in all human societies.”26 This line appears to indicate an ethical viewof CSR. However, ethics still turns out to be a means for catching up with the West.

In the other two major arguments for greater attention to CSR, the context of business is mainly set in China. Thecompetitiveness argument represents a market in which mutually substitutable supplies are abundant, pressure to possessa distinct position is high, and maintaining differentiation in the face of close competition is the top priority. In such anenvironment, success means being ahead of others and doing what others are neither doing nor thinking of doing. The socialsphere was believed to provide a worthy arena of adventure for Chinese enterprises for two reasons: first, the experiencesof the perceived “model companies” in the West seemed to indicate that business would eventually take social needs into

consideration as it moved forward; second, few local businesses had realized the advantage of attending to social well-being,let alone aggressively moving in that direction. It is obvious from the articles that the incorporation of social responsibility,

25 Mao, Y. (2007, December 17). My thoughts on CSR. 21 Century Business Herald.26 Gao, H. (2006, July 12). Corporate social responsibility is a hard standard. Economic Information Daily.

ao

altowdatt

tltsl

4

rCrtrairtr

A

N

R

BB

CCC

CC

D

D

E

X. Liu et al. / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216 215

s promoted in the “becoming more competitive” argument, was starkly a “private responsibility”; in other words, fendingff other Chinese competitors was the primary perceived value of CSR.

In contrast, the “right thing to do” argument focused more on devotion to the social aspect of CSR. In an obligatory sense, business organization’s positive relationship with society is an inherent marker of its success, as implied in the reciprocityine of reasoning. Social contribution, under this argument, is called upon for its own sake. As societal expectations becamehe context for defining what was right, a partially practical and partially ethical logic seemed to emerge—being sociallyriented was the best choice for a forward-looking company wishing to comply with the demands of external constituents,hich was also regarded as a sign of the irreversible momentum of the times. In fact, compliance with social expectations haseep moral implications from the viewpoint of Chinese culture, as behaving according to others’ expectations is considered

virtue (Yang, 1993) and respecting the inherent trend of development means wisdom. According to a Chinese proverb,hose who suit their actions to the time are wise. In a similar vein, success in business comes to those who do not act contraryo the movement of society but take the initiative to adapt to the social context.

While the multiple rationales for CSR did not seem to be in conflict, the examined articles revealed some tension betweenhe ideas of what constitutes a successful business. Specifically, there were tensions between (1) the global view and theocal view as to the boundary of competition and (2) the emphasis on satisfying external expectations in their own right andhat on leveraging societal concerns only to advance business interests. In our speculation, while the divergent visions ofuccess in business ventures may not undermine the attention that CSR attracts as a desirable concept, they would severelyimit the process by which Chinese enterprises institutionalize a socially responsible orientation into their daily operations.

. Conclusion

This study attempted to shed some light on the milieu of public opinion regarding Chinese business’ attention to sociallyesponsible policies and operations. The objective was achieved by examining newspaper-mediated rationales for a strongerSR orientation among Chinese enterprises. The research questions were answered to the extent that the major lines ofeasoning distinguished among the newspaper articles were contextualized into the varied visions of business success so aso allow for the emergence of a culturally informed explication of the instrumental and ethical arguments for CSR. In thisegard, this study makes at least one contribution to the field of CSR: it demonstrates the importance of a socio-culturalpproach to the CSR discourse at a societal level, in that it enriches our knowledge as to why a supportive voice is expressedn a particular manner. Such knowledge would provide us a starting point to understand the mode of CSR enactment ineal business settings within a particular matrix of political, social, and cultural factors. With this view in place, we suggesthat future research consider the interface between rationales for CSR on the public agenda and the self-perceived sociallyesponsible behaviors of corporations in their daily operations.

ppendix A. Distribution of pro-CSR arguments from 2001 to 2008

Year Argument 1 Argument 2 Argument 3 Total

Underlying reasoning 1 Underlying reasoning 2 Underlying reasoning 1 Underlying reasoning 2

2001 1 12002 3 32003 2 2 1 52004 2 1 1 9 132005 1 2 1 14 4 222006 6 2 16 242007 4 1 1 18 242008 3 1 19 23Total 19 6 4 81 5 115

ote: The numbers in the table represent the number of newspaper articles that advanced a particular argument to advocate the adoption of CSR.

eferences

oxenbaum, E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as institutional hybrids. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1), 45–63.urchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). Confronting the “corporate citizen”: Shaping the discourse of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Sociology

and Social Policy, 26(3/4), 121–137.arroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 100, 1–7.arroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.arroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. E. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinion about major corporations. Corporate

Reputation Review, 6(1), 36–46.orbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.utbirth, C., Shapiro, M., & Williams, W., Jr. (1991). The impact of campaign agendas on perceptions of issues in 1980 campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 60(2),

226–231.

oh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder

perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47–73.onaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1),

49–64.ntman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.

216 X. Liu et al. / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 207– 216

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London/New York: Routledge.Graafland, J., & van de Ven, B. (2006). Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22, 111–123.Hartman, L. P., Rubin, R. S., & Dhanda, K. K. (2007). The communication of corporate social responsibility: United States and European Union multinational

corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 373–389.Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management: New perspectives on why companies engage in corporate social reporting.

Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 55–68.Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.McCombs, M., & Ghanem, S. I. (2001). The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life:

Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 67–81). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2002). News influence on our pictures of the world. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: International perspectives. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1), 1–7.Mohan, A. (2006). Global corporate social responsibilities management in MNCs. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1), 9–33.McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Pirsch, J., Gupta, S., & Grau, S. L. (2007). A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study.

Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 125–140.Rozanova, J. (2006). Portrayals of corporate social responsibility: A comparative analysis of a Russian and a Canadian newspaper. Journal of East European

Management Studies, 11(1), 48–71.

Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 103–122.Takeshita, T. (1997). Exploring the media’s roles in defining reality: From issue-agenda setting to attribute-agenda setting. In M. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, & D.

Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy (pp. 15–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Yang, Z. (1993). Zhong guo ren zhen de shi ji ti zhu yi de ma? Shi lun zhong guo wen hua de jia zhi ti xi. In G. Yang (Ed.), Zhong guo ren de jia zhi guan: She

hui ke xue guan dian. Taipei: Gui guan tushu gong si.