Session 13, Lekakis

Editor's Notes

• #2: Beyond sciences and beyond disciplines, the relationship between business and society lies at the heart of some of the most critical and contested debates at the turn of the century. In this paper I examine different aspects of corporate communication in relation to the wider social and political transformations such as the development of new media and the centrality of neoliberal capitalism. By examining how different subfields of corporate communication can be furthered through research, I illuminate different types of approaches which could advance our understanding of corporate communication as an interdisciplinary field.
• #3: This relationship is under rigid theorisation (proliferation of handbooks and readers on the issues of CSR and CC, terms which dominate research on the management, organisation, and politicisation of corporations). (Burchell, 2008; Crane, Matten and Moon, 2008; Scherer and Palazzo, 2008; Benn and Bolton, 2011.)These terms have been inter-related, inter-exchanged and intersected in the muddy waters of the understanding of the status, entitlements and process of economic entities in social and political practices. Business communication (regarding roles, responsibilities and participation in society) typically viewed in relation to branding, marketing and management perspectives in terms of reporting on transparency, accountability and responsibility particularly in terms of the ‘triple bottom line’ and corporations are increasingly advancing their CSR profiles and projects.Contested past: Is there a business case for CSR? (cf. Kinsley, 2008)Traditional (branding, marketing and management) perspectives have been concerned with the issue of corporate citizenship and business ethics. These have been focused on the historical, social and political concerns about the effects of business and commercial relations. Historically, these attempts have met difficulties in terms of contextualising the role of business in society. Ideas that CSR takes away resources from the firm’s principal economic functions and thus that there is no business case for CSR, e.g. Milton Friedman’s (1970) declaration that the only responsibility of business is “to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game”, the game being market competition. This is also a stark contrast to arguments claiming that the market will economically and financially reward organisations that engage in CSR activities” (Caroll and Shabana, 2010: 101). Whether there is a business case for CSR is not the issue here, but this debate epitomises the contestation characterising the conceptualisation of role and responsibility of business in society.Perplexed present: CSR for Whom? For What? When? Where? How much? Through which medium? To what effect? Why? (cf. Waddock, 2004; Valor, 2005)Primarily, research on corporate communication is directly relevant to advancements in research on corporate citizenship, a term which now has been retrieved to tackle the lack of cohesion in the field. Drawing from this, few, but important studies in the inspection of corporations as political entities (Bakan, 2004; Gerencser, 2005; Crane, Moon and Matten, 2008). It is in this vein that I aim to flesh out the context of corporate communication.
• #4: Counternarrative: There is also ‘I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. A variety of civil society agents residing predominantly in the United States, such as Reclaim Democracy, Free Speech for People, Backbone Campaign, Alliance for Democracy and the Move to Amend, have been campaigning against the very issue of corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is the claim that corporations are intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings. The idea of corporate personhood is directly linked to a social understanding of the idea of corporate citizenship. The recognition of corporations as legal persons creates a series of questions regarding the distribution of political rights and our democratic future, thus the need to broaden our understanding of corporate communication is increasing.
• #5: While the debate on corporate citizenship has been advanced by researchers who attribute a political lens in their studies (Gerencser, 2005; Scherer and Palazzo, 2007; Gong and Matten, 2007; Crane, Matten and Moon, 2008), the communication of corporations remains routed within management-related disciplines. Within this context, I outline an argument for the reconfiguration of corporate communication and propose a selection of approaches which would complement its study.Beyond the corporate world, additionally rooted in the study of corporate communications is the tendency to overplay branding, marketing and management as definitive perspectives into the communication practices of corporations (cf. Argenti,). A series of arguments have been voiced in relation to the definition of corporate communication as a discipline (Argenti, 1996; Carroll, 1998; Cornelissen, 2011). However, these are not in tune with an overarching understanding of the significance of corporate communications within a socio-political approach. The rising political role of corporations within the global civic society necessitates their examination as such. Argument: this paper presents the initiation of an attempt to reconfigure corporate communication in light of the widening of the debate on corporate citizenship. I argue for the need to readdress the epistemological foundations and interpretations of corporate communication not just as a research object, but as an interdisciplinary field. If we talk about Corporate Citizenship, we have to talk about the Communication of Corporations as Political Entities. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate corporate communication as a research object in relation to its different aspects and to argue that it should develop as an interdisciplinary field informed by both the sciences based on a consideration of the social world (political science, sociology, communication, anthropology, economics) as well as the sciences based on a consideration of the economic world (business, management, finance, marketing and organisational studies).
• #6: The typical perspectives for functionalistic corporate communications are related branding, marketing and management of CSR communication. [talk about them]However, these approaches have been challenged on the basis of being limited (Gond & Matten, 2007; Ziek, 2009) & arduous/ ‘catch 22’ (Morsing, Schultz and Nielsen, 2003). The need for different research approaches in relation to CSR has been pointed out. There have been increasing calls for the necessity of furthering research pertinent to the politicisation of corporations. Advancing research on the politicisation of corporations within critical management studies points to the need of qualitative analysis of corporate participation and agency (Salzman et al, 2005; Benn & Bolton, 2011). Margolis and Walsh (2003) argue that a fruitful starting point for research on CSR would be an interrogation of how organisations actually benefit society. These types of concerns related to a more socio-political examination, rather than an organisational one. Building a framework beyond the business-centred model of CSR has been widening the scope of the study of corporate citizenship, but not its communication in a substantial manner.
• #7: For Argenti (1996), the ‘image and identity’ of corporations is inherently a matter of reputation and market research is the direct way of interrogating and organising this form of visual representation. In fact, this is a purely marketing focal point of corporate communication. Directly relevant is ‘corporate advertising’ and advocacy which attempts to promote the image of corporations. Similar is the case for ‘financial communications’, the communications between investor/ shareholders and corporations, a function completely related to the smooth sailing of corporations. These types of subfields of corporate communications are arguably best regarded within the spaces of business schools and critical management, as they are intrinsically related to the functions of corporations and not directly relevant to position of corporations within social life.
• #8: For Argenti (1996), the ‘image and identity’ of corporations is inherently a matter of reputation and market research is the direct way of interrogating and organising this form of visual representation. In fact, this is a purely marketing focal point of corporate communication. Directly relevant is ‘corporate advertising’ and advocacy which attempts to promote the image of corporations. Similar is the case for ‘financial communications’, the communications between investor/ shareholders and corporations, a function completely related to the smooth sailing of corporations. These types of subfields of corporate communications are arguably best regarded within the spaces of business schools and critical management, as they are intrinsically related to the functions of corporations and not directly relevant to position of corporations within social life.
• #9: The case is different for other subfields of corporate communication, such as, for instance, ‘government relations’, relations between corporations and governments, are to be regarded as PR or lobbying when rooted within the functionalism of business schools. The exploration of corporate power, participation and political efficacy can be scrutinised in relation to further developments in the field of corporate citizenship (cf. Crane, Matten and Moon, 2008), which are thorough and illuminating particularly because of their reflexive understanding of corporations through terms borrowed from political science.
• #10: Similar is the case with ‘media relations’. These are, naturally, the relations between corporations and the media. A managerial perspective views media relations as a further extension of the image and the promotion of the image of corporations; Argenti argues that this is important for corporations in order to “promote a positive image to shareholders and other critical constituents” (1996: 79). However, there is a lack of balance in the lack of literature beyond public relations (PR). In this subfield, a critical political economy of communications approach could elucidate important institutional relations between corporations and the media in terms of preferentialism and biased hierarchy (Bennett, Lawrence and Livingston, 2007). Critical political economy studies focus on the structures of media corporations in terms of their organisation and finances and how their messages are influenced by their managerial, financial and organisational choices.
• #12: the lack of debate on the corporations’ position on labour or crisis would be a superficial engagement with the subject. ‘Employee relations’, which are crucially communications between corporations and their employees, can be further understood by anthropological or sociological studies of precarious employment in flexible capitalism (cf. Ho, 2009; Matos, 2010).
• #13: Argenti views ‘crisis communications’ as a function similar to risk management. However, the increasing presence of the term ‘crisis’ in everyday vernacular has been evident in the concretisation of the global ‘triple crisis’ (food, finance, development). The symbolic and actual power of corporations should thus not be excluded from the study of the dynamics of global civil society.
• #14: Image/ identityCorporate advocacyFinancial communicationsMedia communications Government communications Community communicationsCorporate philanthropyEmployee relationsCrisis communications