|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 CSR C OMMUNICATION THROUGH CORPORATE WEBSITES: A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE By MAI SHI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORI DA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 201 2
2 201 2 Mai Shi
3 To my beloved family and dear friends, for their unceasing love and support
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Fir st, I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, for expressing great enthusiasm about my thesis, for lighting my inspiration in this endeavor, for sacrificing her limited spare time to review my drafts several times in minu te detail, and for giving me delightful encouragement to accomplish this study. I will always keep in mind every insightful suggestion she made on my work. I also want to thank Dr. Linda Hon and Dr. Sora Kim for being my committee members. Dr. Hon has been extremely patient with me. Without her valuable guidance, I would never have gained the confidence and peace of mind necessary to obtain my objectives. Dr. Kim has been greatly helpful to me and understanding Without her profound knowledge and supportive ness I would never have lifted my work to a higher level. Indeed, I deeply appreciate all of the help that my committee members have given me so willingly. They are my role models. Second, I would like to thank my parents, Dabo Liu and Ying Shi who motiv e me to drive forward forcefully on my academic path. Without their sacrifice, love, and support, I would not be able to follow my heart to choose the right direction of life Last, I would like to express special thanks to all of my amazing friends at the University of Florida. Thank you : Kylie Zheng Li Zhi Yujing Zhang Haishi Cui, and Jing Sun for being with me during the tough moments of my life.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 ....................... 15 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 CSR as an Umbrella Construct ................................ ................................ ............... 19 CSR Construct Development ................................ ................................ .................. 25 CSR Communication Development ................................ ................................ ........ 32 CSR Communication through Corporate Website ................................ .................. 34 CSR Reports on Cor porate Website ................................ ................................ ....... 36 Why Companies Conduct CSR Communication ................................ ..................... 39 A Stakeholder Theory Perspective ................................ ................................ ... 39 Advantages of a Stakeholder Perspective ................................ ........................ 40 CSR Practices Measurement ................................ ................................ .................. 41 CSR Communication Regar ding Country Difference ................................ .............. 48 Intensity of CSR communication ................................ ................................ ............. 50 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ x 53 Content Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 53 Coding Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 54 4 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 59 RQ1: Differences between CSR Section Terms on the U.S and Chinese Website ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 59 RQ2: CSR Principles Motivating Fortune 500 Companies ................................ ...... 61 RQ 3: CSR Processes Comparison ................................ ................................ ......... 62 RQ 4: Comparison of Stakeholder Issues ................................ ............................... 63 RQ 5: Overall CSR Communication Intensity of Chin a and the U.S. Fortune 500 Companies ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 65 Differences of CSR Communication Content and Format ................................ ....... 66
6 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ........ 73 Summary of Results ................................ ................................ ................................ 73 CSR Section Terms ................................ ................................ .......................... 73 CSR principle Compariso n ................................ ................................ ............... 74 Comparison of CSR Processes and Stakeholder Issues ................................ 76 CSR Communication Intensity on Corporate Websites ................................ ........... 78 Theoretical Implication ................................ ................................ ............................ 82 Practical Implication ................................ ................................ ................................ 86 Limitations and Future Resea rch ................................ ................................ ............ 88 APPENDIX A CSR MEASUREMENT CATEGORIZATION ................................ ........................... 90 B CODING GUIDE ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 93 C CODING SHEET ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 96 D CHINA FORTUNE 500 COMPANY LIST ................................ ................................ 98 E U.S FORTUNE 500 COMPANY LIST ................................ ................................ .. 100 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 102 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 108
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Comparison of the CSR terms that manage the CSR section ............................ 70 4 2 Comparison of CSR principles in the U.S and China ................................ ......... 70 4 3 Comparison of CSR processes presence in the U.S and China Fortune 500 companies ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 71 4 4 Stakeholder issues categorized by stakeholder groups ................................ ...... 72 4 5 CSR communication intensity comparison ................................ ......................... 72
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 CSR principle categorization ................................ ................................ .............. 52
9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communica tion CSR COMMUNICATION THROUGH CORPORATE WEBSITES: A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE By Mai Shi M ay 201 2 Chair: Mary Ann Ferguson Major: Mass Communication This study compare d the extent, the content and the practices of CSR communication pertaining to stakeholder issues by analyzing the U.S. and China Fortune 500 corporate websites and by focusing on the web pages devoted to CSR issues and CSR reports. Five research questions were designe d to guide this study. They focus on comparison of CSR terms of which manage the CSR section, comparison of CSR principles, comparison of CSR processes and stakeholder issues in the U.S and China Fortune 500 companies. By conducting a content analysis of their corporate websites, activities did not show the same level of dedication to CSR communication. This study ferent focus on various something in common regarding the stakeholder driven principle and the pressing stakeholder issues.
10 The implication from the study indicated that the importance of a stakeholder stakeholder driven principle. This study offers public rel ations management level international public relations arena; it also shed some light upon them about how to conduct CSR communication strategically with corporate website in various countries, especially for those working at multinational corporations.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION society are ever (Corporate Social Responsibility) is a business fashion that cannot be ignored by corporations. The socially responsible activities and abundant research on CSR communicati on. With estimated spending on charitable giving alone reaching $310 billion in the U.S. (Giving USA Foundation, 2008), CSR can be seen as a mainstream topic that is rising to a corporate priority in the management and marketing arenas (Franklin, 2008). Co discussion over the scope of CSR, the motivation underlying CSR practices, and its merits on corporations. For example, Dahlrud (2006) argued that the variation of the CSR concept create high equivocality (Weick, 1995) and substantial organizational communication problems (Ziek, 2009). North America, air and water pollution in Europe, child la bor in Asia, political upheaval in South America, human rights in Africa and the global climate change debate. These are just a few examples of the challenges that corporations, especially multi national ones have to face on a daily basis (Epstein, 2007). As a way to turn the challenge into opportunities, corporations strive to gain sustained strategic advantages over their competitors, and have actively engaged in CSR activities (Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2006). Companies are building positive
12 corporate ass ociations to generate more sales and increase investments by CSR communication. We should also look at how the academic world responds to the popularity of CSR. Ever since the 1950s, business critics and the scholars started to conduct CSR research (Crane, McWilliams, Matten, Moon, & Siegel, 2008). Although there has been a plethora of scholarly literature review on the topic of CSR, measurement in this branch of organization research is underdeveloped compared to measurement in the marketing and management fields (Abbott & Monsen, 1979). Moreover, most of the studies focus on the relationship between CSR and financial performance (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). Nonetheless, in these two decades, the growing popularity of the stakeholder perspective both in academ ics and the professional world indicates that shareholder is not the only important target audience in CSR communication; corporations should engaged in a multi stakeholder dialogue when performing socially responsible (Bhattacharya, Korschun & Sen, 2009; Pedersen,2006). Although CSR has been a pervasive business phenomenon and regarded as a business imperative, research and practitioners often overlooked the communication of comm impossible without communication, both at the micro and macro level (as cited in Signitzer and Prexl Sen, Bhatt acharya, and Korschun (2006) conducted a survey and found out that (e.g. consumers), but also among its internal stakeholders (e.g. employees). A lack of
13 public awareness of companies to reap strategic benefits from those CSR activities (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). Also, Wanderley et al (2008) believed corporate CSR communication is an under investigated area and According to Wanderley et al (2008), the communication process with stakeholders can be conducted through different channels: press releases, advertising campaigns, promotions, sustainability repor ts and the Internet, to name a few. However, the advantages of the Internet have made websites one of the best tools that a company can utilize to publicize detailed, up to date CSR infor mation disclosure. Wanderley et al (2008) further argued that inform access. Corporations also enjoy low cost, fast Internet speeds and highly controlled power over what kinds of CSR information they publish. Therefore, the 1990s witnessed an increasing number of companies using corporate websites to provide official CSR When it comes to CSR communication on corporate websites, there are s cholars (Golob & Bartlett, 2007) pointing out that CSR disclosure is a key tool for companies to communicate with myriad of stakeholders about their CSR activities. However, given the lack of clarity on the benefits of CSR reporting and scarcity of studies in CSR reporting, some corporations are hesitant to produce CSR reports. According to Nikolaeva and Bicho (2011), while environmental, social and corporate governance data are becoming crucial for investment decisions, the absence of institutional norms a nd guidelines added many uncertainties to CSR communication behaviors. Extant research
14 (Reynolds, Schultz, & Hekman 2006) shows that organizations orient themselves to serve various stakeholder groups. Given the competitive business environment, organizat communication specialists in diverse organizations have to determine what content to include in CSR disclosu re in order to effectively target various stakeholders. According to Sweeney and Coughlan (2008), exploring a group of CSR best practice annual social reports, not only helps us understand the range of stakeholders addressed in the reports, but also to pr specified stakeholders. Holder Webb et al. (2008) believed that the stakeholder theory perspective has became the mainstream approach in CSR research and has been adopted by a large number of c orporations, especially multinational ones to guide their CSR practices. Bhattacharya, Korsch un and Sen (2009) stated that C SR plays a crucial role in the dialogue between companies and their stakeholders. Moreover, a stakeholder theory perspective encoura ges business to incorporate social, environmental and governance information into corporate communication. KPMG (2003) pointed out that the majority of Fortune 500 companies not only engaged in CSR activities, but also contribute d substantial resources to report CSR activities to a wide spectrum of corporate stakeholders. In addition, multi stakeholder groups have demonstrated supportiveness on reporting these information by demanding corporations to measure the performance of sustainable development. Thus, the past decade has witnessed a ballooning number of corporate issued reporting related to their social and environmental performance, in
15 various forms, such as CSR disclosure on corporate website s press releases, issuing social and environment reports a 2008). For example, Shell reported their environmental and social performance since 1997. Other well known examples include Nike issued CSR report as a response to consumer boycotts toward protests and abuse s of their child labor abuse in Asia. The conceptual literatures regarding CSR strongly suggest CSR implementation. Based on Alon et al. (2010), the context, the extent, the content, and the commun ication of CSR has an impact on CSR implementation among corporations, regions and countries. While most of the studies today are generated from or focus on developed countries (SHRM, 2007; Bertelsmann, 2007), the buzz and attention around CSR has been tra relatively weak compared to North America and Europe, therefore providing numerous obstacles for them to achieve corporate responsibility; Shafer, Fukukawa, and Lee concept between the U.S and Chinese managers in multi national corporations. Other scholars (Chapple et al., 2007, Lattemman et al 2009) documented the trend of national companies. Thus, recent growth of the Chi nese CSR initiatives deserves an analysis of the CSR associated with human rights abuses, substandard products, sweatshops, and serious environmental pollution (Lin, 2008).
16 Hence, it is important to investigate whether the intensified CSR activities (Ziek, 2009) can affect the extent of CSR communication and CSR disclosure, mainly through the channel of corporate websites. And whether the country of origin of the company has a bearing on how they conduct CSR communication. on Asia is relatively nascent (Alon et al., 2010; Chapple & Moon, 2005; Welford, 2004; Bauhgn et al., 2007). Existing studies inv owned business would not be conducive to CSR efforts (Chapple & Moon, 2005). According to Qu and Leung (2006), the transparency issue CSR disclosure has always been questioned by international investors who are its effectiveness. Shi and Weisert (2002) mentioned t hat some listed companies will falsify and fabricate financial and governance information to attain new injection from the capital market. Therefore, understanding how Chinese Fortune 500 companies conduct CSR communication and disclose CSR information wil l benefit professionals and academics learn the current state of Chinese CSR practices and its context. frequently and intensively compared with their Western counterparts (p.8). Lattemann Fetscherin, Li and Schneider (2009) believed CSR in highly developed countries, such as the U.S and the Western European countries, wa obligation to protect and improve social welfare through various business and social
17 (p.427). In these mature economies, companies are taking CSR initiatives to gain sustainable competitive advantage by highlighting their contributions to social and environmental aspects of the society. Baughn, Bodie and Mcintosh (2007) also pointed out that the economic development will ultimately increase CSR activities in society. However, Lattemann et al. wer level of economic development, has a higher CSR communication intensity than China, so they argued that the development of CSR is not simply determined by the economic factor. Purpose of the Study Previously, there is a dearth of literature comparing CSR practices between China and the U.S. plus their CSR communication activities. Baughn et al. (2009) argued that significant differences may exist in how the United States an d Chinese approaches to CSR implementation and communication (Hartman, Rubin, & Dhanda, 2007). Specifically, using the stakeholder theory as the study background this research aims to f ind SR practices. In addition, different focuses on stakeholder issues between China and the U.S will practices, including the term they assign to the section of CSR, the motives b ehind CSR activities and the type of CSR processes in which they engaged. Thus, this present research sought to examine whether at these two distinct countries, the stakeholder ent, content, intensity and stakeholder issu es. This study also aims to f in d out whether or not
18 systematic differences exist in what issues are the focus among U.S. and China Fortune 500 companies conducting CSR communication. To sum up, the purpose of the study aims to compare the extent, the content and the practices of CSR communication pertaining to stakeholder issues by the U.S. and China. By analyzing the U.S. and China Fortune 500 corporate websites and by focusing on the sections and web pages devot ed to CSR issues and CSR reports, this activities differently or share something in common, and the pressing stakeholder issues for each country. This study offers public re lations management level professionals a relations stage; it also shed s some light about how to conduct CSR communication strategically with corporate website in various countries, especially for those working at multinational corporations. This research unfolds as follows: the first section of the literature review discusses the development of the CSR construct. The second section highlights CSR communication a nd advantages of using corporate websites as the channel to disclose CSR information. The third part of the literature discusses the application of stakeholder perspective in CSR implementation. Then the last part of the literature will explore the extent of CSR reporting in each country and whether the country of origin affects CSR reporting on websites. Methodology part provides guidelines and procedures of content analysis. Findings and results from the content analysis of corporate websites are presente d. The paper ended with a discussion of the implications of the findings in the context of globalization, limitations of the study, and directions for future research.
19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW CSR as a n Umbrella Construct Clark (2000), and Grunig and H unt (1984) pointed out corporate responsibility was one of the most prominent topics in the arena of public relations. They also observed a close relationship between the practice of corporate responsibility and public relations. Companies are progressivel y taking responsibilities for the social sphere instead of focusing solely on their economic activities (Capriotti & Moreno, 2007). According to Sweeney and Coughlan (2008), CSR is a broad, complex and evolving concept that encompasses a wide range of idea s. Scholars have described the faceted qualities, it is very challenging for academics to devise a single, precise an d general definition of CSR. Concerning the distinct views on the scope and priority of CSR, it is almost impossible to reach the agreement on a definition when investors, corporate managers, stakeholders nationally or internationally are involved (Hoepner Yu, & Ferguson, 2010). Signitzer and Prexel (2008) proposed that CSR is an umbrella term for various concepts referring to the role of business in society. These concepts include but are not limited to; corporate governance, corporate citizenship, corpo rate accountability and faceted facete d attribution of CSR CSR practices. For example, local governments and non governmental organizations
20 (NGOs) demand environmentally and socially responsible corporate co nduct. For general publics, CSR activities are more of public private partnerships in which the public value community relations. For shareholders, a main concern is to acquire short term profit gains that allow businesses to increase return rates (Signitz er & Prexl, 2008). lead corporations to communicate CSR, diversely, sensitively, strategically and in multiple ways. e social responsibilities faith in the practices of behaviors (Giddens, 1990), stakeholders become aware of the ethical activities of the companies through information de livery. Based on Mayasari (2009), stakeholder will perceive that the companies have a good willingness to enhance the quality standard of delivering goods or services to them. On the contrary, Mayasari (2009) argued that the deficiencies of the CSR have th e implications of corporate performance in the long term. Existing literatures have adopted the stakeholder perspective to study he multi stakeholder dialogue ( Bhattacharya et al., 2009; J ose & Lee, 2007; Pedersen, 2006). This study also adopts stakeholder theory as the paradigmatic background. Arguably, among various constructs presented by scholars, the most cited CSR definition and framework in the U.S. is proposed by Carroll (1979). He stated that the
21 500). Carroll (1999) later admitted that the above CSR definition is only one of countless definitions which have proliferated through the literature since the 1950s. Moon (2002) further supported the multiplicity of the CSR conception by observing practices and norms of new business society relations. There are contending names, concepts or According to Silberhorn and Warren (2007), CSR as a well known expression, has been a collection of dif ferent yet related terms: corporate philanthropy, triple bottom line, corporate citizenship, community development and sustainability. Some of these terms share resemblance to each other, but some of the terms contain other connotations. For example, corpo rate governance emphasizes the shareholder aspects within the CSR aspect of the responsibility concept. In addition, Waddock (2004) found that the concept of corporate cited in Capriotti & Moreno, 2007). This concept incorporates a global focus and the concrete appro ach of the stakeholder theory into CSR in the past decade and has acquiring relevance to CSR. Herrmann (2004) observed that the concept of corporate responsibility has come closer to the broader concept of sustainable development in the past few years with environment. Thus, Silberhorn and Warren (2007) pointed out a lack of consensus in a CSR definition may seriously hamper CSR developing researches and implementing CSR
22 strategies. Hopkins (2004) s tated that most empirical studies focus on U.S, Canada and UK firms, while failing to assess the differences existing in CSR definitions in these countries. Recent research evidence suggests that large companies have increasingly defined CSR from their cor Silberhorn and Warren (2007) also emphasize the importance to explore the thinking and definitional influences behind CSR notions. natio nal evidence that CSR varies in terms of its underlying meanings and the issues to which and modes by which above argument. He conducted a European survey of CSR and found 50 differen t labels for CSR models, 40 different labels for CSR programs and numerous CSR sustainability or sustainable development, corporate environmental management, business & s ociety, business & governance, business & globalization, and stakeholder study reached similar conclusions regarding multiplicity of the CSR terms. (Visser, 2005). Ziek (2009) pointed out the overall approach of conducting CSR communication varies by corporations and is contingent on factors of country of origin (Chappel & Moon, 2005; Baughn, Bodie & McIntosh, 2007), size ( Esrock & Leichty, 1998). In addition, since diffe rent industries and organization have a different focus when communicating
23 interest being an efficient and profitable business and being a good steward of the environment de cited in Capriotti & Moreno, 2007). This concept incorporates a global focus and the concrete approach of the stakeholder theory into CSR in the past decade and has acq uiring relevance to CSR. Herrmann (2004) observed that the concept of corporate responsibility has come closer to the broader concept of sustainable development in the environme el Furthermore, according to Maignan and Ralston (2002), the proposed definition and arguments of CSR are all cent ered around North America and European research. Currently, there is little evidence to determine whether this proposition is accepted outside those areas. Also, studies about whether CSR involvement is driven by the same CSR principles across countries, w hether CSR principles translate into similar CSR initiatives in different countries, or whether CSR communication is using similar strategies across borders are limited (Lattemann et al., 2009). For example, in the global public relations field, Sriramesh and Vercic (2003) suggested that societal culture was another significant variable to affect the practice and
24 character of public relations. Signitzer and Prexel (2008) proposed that people in different countries have distinct interpretations of the concep t of CSR because different societal cultures may emphasize certain aspects of CSR. Burton, Farh and Hegarty (2000) suggested that differences in social values will be reflected in attitudes toward CSR. Based on Orpan (1987), different cultures have differe nt requirements of business; some cultures consider economic responsibilities to be the most important to generate much needed income, while other cultures require corporations to be concerned with noneconomic responsibilities and hold a higher standard of ethics. But other scholars (e.g. Donaldson, 1989) have argued that fundamental morality and values of cultures should be universal and differences across cultures would not affect them. When it comes to the variable of infrastructure, Signitzer and Prexl (2008) argued CSR communication is more likely to happen in countries with governments a re shifting part of responsibilities they cannot afford to companies. This practice has became common among developed countries with a liberal market, such as in North America and most of the European CSR leading countries, including U.K, German, France, N etherlands (Maignan & Ralston, 2002) Thus, does China, a developing country with market oriented economy and less freedom from government, adopt different aspects of the CSR concept compare those developed countries. In summary, as Pedersen (2006) conclude definitions with social development. Thus, based on the extant literature reviews and
25 various CSR interpretations by corporations, this st udy will not try to define CSR as an all embracing concept (Pedersen, 2006). Instead, this study regards CSR as an activities voluntary by definition demonstrating the incl usion of social and environmental definition suggests the close relationship between CSR and stakeholder theory. Also, adopting CSR as an umbrella concept, this study can ref rain from limiting itself to specific CSR strategy or specific environmental issues, and best encompass all the issues related to the relationship between business and society that can be found on corporate websites ( Pedersen, 2006). Therefore, following the conceptualization and arguments of CSR as an umbrella concept and the possible understanding difference of CSR across countries, the study first attempts to see what CSR related terms/typology/ labels are presented on corporate websites. Hence, the fol lowing research question is proposed: RQ1 : What are the differences of the CSR term used to manage CSR section in 1a) What are the most frequently used CSR terms for the CSR section to comm unicate CSR practices on Chinese Fortune 500 corporate websites? 1b) What are the most frequently used CSR terms for the CSR section to communicate CSR practices on the U.S. Fortune 500 corporate websites? CSR C o nstruct D evelopment Clark (2000), and Gruni g and Hunt (1984) pointed out corporate responsibility was one of the most prominent topics in the arena of public relations. They also observed a close relationship between the practice of corporate responsibility and public relations.
26 Companies are progr essively taking responsibilities for the social sphere instead of focusing solely on their economic activities (Capriotti & Moreno, 2007). According to Sweeney and Coughlan (2008), CSR is a broad, complex and evolving concept that encompasses a wide range of ideas. Scholars have described the faceted qualities, it is very challenging for academics to devise a single, pre cise and general definition of CSR. Concerning the distinct views on the scope and priority of CSR, it is almost impossible to reach the agreement on a definition when investors, corporate managers, stakeholders nationally or internationally are involved ( Hoepner, Yu, & Ferguson, 2010). Signitzer and Prexel (2008) proposed that CSR is an umbrella term for various concepts referring to the role of business in society. These concepts include but are not limited to; corporate governance, corporate citizenship corporate accountability and faceted faceted attribution of CSR CSR practices. For example, local governments and non governmental organizations (NGOs) demand environmentally and socially responsible corpo rate conduct. For general publics, CSR activities are more of public private partnerships in which the public value community relations. For shareholders, a main concern is to acquire short term profit gains that allow businesses to increase return rates ( Signitzer & Prexl, 2008).
27 lead corporations to communicate CSR, diversely, sensitively, strategically and in multiple ways. orporate social responsibilities faith in the practices of behaviors (Giddens, 1990), stakeholders become aware of the ethical activities of the companies through informa tion delivery. Based on Mayasari (2009), stakeholder will perceive that the companies have a good willingness to enhance the quality standard of delivering goods or services to them. On the contrary, Mayasari (2009) argued that the deficiencies of the CSR have the implications of corporate performance in the long term. Existing literatures have adopted the stakeholder perspective to study stakeholder dialogue (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Jo se & Lee, 2007; Pedersen, 2006). This study also adopts stakeholder theory as the paradigmatic background. Arguably, among various constructs presented by scholars, the most cited CSR definition and framework in the U.S. is proposed by Carroll (197 9). He stated that the 500). Carroll (1999) later admitted that the above CSR defini tion is only one of countless definitions which have proliferated through the literature since the 1950s. Moon (2002) further supported the multiplicity of the CSR conception by observing re the practices and
28 norms of new business society relations. There are contending names, concepts or According to Silberhorn and Warren (2007), CSR as a well known expression, has been a collection of different yet related terms: corporate philanthropy, triple bottom line, corporate citizenship, community development and sustainability. Some of these terms share resemblance to each other, but some of the terms contain other connotations. For example corporate governance emphasizes the shareholder aspects within the CSR aspect of the responsibility concept. In addition, Waddock (2004) found that the concept of cor cited in Capriotti & Moreno, 2007). This concept incorporates a global focus and the concret e approach of the stakeholder theory into CSR in the past decade and has acquiring relevance to CSR. Herrmann (2004) observed that the concept of corporate responsibility has come closer to the broader concept of sustainable development in the past few yea environment. Thus, Silberhorn and Warren (2007) pointed out a lack of consensus in a CSR definition may seriously hamper CSR developing researches and implementing CSR strategies. Hopkins ( 2004) stated that most empirical studies focus on U.S, Canada and UK firms, while failing to assess the differences existing in CSR definitions in these countries. Recent research evidence suggests that large companies have increasingly defined CSR from th
29 Silberhorn and Warren (2007) also emphasize the importance to explore the thinking and definitional influences behind CSR notions. s national evidence that CSR varies in terms of its underlying meanings and the issues to which and modes by which above argument. He conducted a European survey of CSR and found 50 d ifferent labels for CSR models, 40 different labels for CSR programs and numerous CSR sustainability or sustainable development, corporate environmental management, busin ess & society, business & governance, business & globalization, and stakeholder study reached similar conclusions regarding multipli city of the CSR terms. (Visser, 2005) Ziek (2009) pointed out the overall approach of conducting CSR communication varies by corporations and is contingent on factors of country of origin (Chappel & Moon, 2005; Baughn, Bodie & McIntosh, 2007), size ( Esrock & Leichty, 1998). In addition, sin ce different industries and organization have a different focus when communicating now that being an efficient and profitable business and being a good steward of the environment
30 mpany cited in Capriotti & Moreno, 2007). This concept incorporates a global focus and the concrete approach of the stakeholder theory into CSR in the past decade and has acquiring relevance to CSR. Herrmann (2004) observed that the concept of corporate responsibility has come closer to the broader concept of sustainable development in the e Furthermore, according to Maignan and Ralston (2002), the proposed definition and arguments of CSR are all centered around North America and European research. Currently, there is little evidence to determine whether this proposition is accepted outside those areas. Also, studies about whether CSR involvement is driven by the same CSR principles across coun tries, whether CSR principles translate into similar CSR initiatives in different countries, or whether CSR communication is using similar strategies across borders are limited (Lattemann et al., 2009). For example, in the global public relations field, Sr iramesh and Vercic (2003) suggested that societal culture was another significant variable to affect the practice and character of public relations. Signitzer and Prexel (2008) proposed that people in different countries have distinct interpretations of th e concept of CSR because different societal cultures may emphasize certain aspects of CSR.
31 Burton, Farh and Hegarty (2000) suggested that differences in social values will be reflected in attitudes toward CSR. Based on Orpan (1987), different cultures have different requirements of business; some cultures consider economic responsibilities to be the most important to generate much needed income, while other cultures require corporations to be concerned with noneconomic responsibilities and hold a higher sta ndard of ethics. But other scholars (e.g. Donaldson, 1989) have argued that fundamental morality and values of cultures should be universal and differences across cultures would not affect them. When it comes to the variable of infrastructure, Signitzer an d Prexl (2008) argued CSR communication is more likely to happen in countries with gover nments are shifting part of responsibilities they cannot afford to companies. This practice has became common among developed countries with a liberal market, such as in North America and most of the European CSR leading countries, including U.K, German, F rance, Netherlands (Maignan & Ralston, 2002) Thus, does China, a developing country with market oriented economy and less freedom from government, adopt different aspects of the CSR concept compare those developed countries. In summary, as Pedersen (2006) definitions with social development. Thus, based on the extant literature reviews and various CSR interpretations by corporations, this study will not try to define CSR as an all embracing concept (Pedersen, 2006). Instead, this study regards CSR as an
32 activities voluntary by definition demonstrating the inclusion of social and environmental definition suggests the close relationship between CSR and stakeholder theory. Also, adopting CSR as an umbrella concept, this study can refrain from limiting itself to specific CSR strategy or specific environmental issues, and best encompass all the issues related to the relationship between business and society that can be found on corporate websites ( Pedersen, 2006). Therefore, fo llowing the conceptualization and arguments of CSR as an umbrella concept and the possible understanding difference of CSR across countries, the study first attempts to see what CSR related terms/typology/ labels are presented on corporate websites. Hence, the following research question is proposed: RQ1 : What are the differences of the CSR term used to manage CSR section in 1a) What are the most frequently used CSR terms for the CSR section to communicate CSR practices on Chinese Fortune 500 corporate websites? 1b) What are the most frequently used CSR terms for the CSR section to communicate CSR practices on the U.S. Fortune 500 corporate websites? CSR Communication Development Public aware CSR is fairly low not only among its external stakeholders (e.g. consumers), but also among its internal stakeho lders (e.g. employees). Without public awareness of a
33 study measured 20 attributes of annual Harris Interactive corporate reputation, the result indicated people are generally in the dark about whether companies are socially and environmentally responsible. When asked about whether they acknowledge Therefore, another key challenge for companies is to encourage consumers and other stakeholders to be more aware of what companies are doing philanthropically and responsibly. Based on Morsing and Schultz (2006), messages regarding corporate company, and make it more attractive for potential employees as a place to work. CSR communication can also put the corporations on the map for potential financial groups to invest. As a result, corporations have actively engaged in the fashion of ethically and responsibly communicating to diverse stakeholder groups. Ba sed on Hutton (2001), in large companies, expenditures on social responsibility have become the third largest budget item in corporate communication depart ment. Nonetheless, Wanderley et al (2008) stated corporate CSR communication is an under investigate d area and only that the empirical research about why, how, and with what effect companies engaged in CSR are scarce. Grayson and Hodges (2004) pointed out that there i the corporate CSR rhetoric and actual practice on the ground because of difficulties in when they try to translate the abstract concept of C SR into practice (Pederson, 2006).
34 CSR communication may not necessarily indicate non activity; however, with the art and parcel of CSR, 48). This study starts from discussing how corporations engaged in CSR communication. CSR Communication through Corporate Website Silberhorn and Wa rren(2007) pointed out many scholars had started to pay attention on the public presentation of CSR communication by using a more grounded approach and benefit from analyzing the World Wide Web. Studies of Esrock and Leichty (1998, 2000), Maignan and Rals ton (2002), Snider et al. (2003) have great communication by analyzing corporate websites. Scholars have investigated the terms used when referring to the CSR concept, the number of CSR statements, the stakeholder groups addressed, and the CSR initiatives companies engaged in and the CSR reporting on website ( Alon et al. 2010; Baughn, 2008; Lattemann et al., 2009). Although the communication process with stakeholders can be condu cted through different channels: advertising campaigns, promotions and the internet, the advantages of the internet have made websites a useful tool for a company to publicize its detailed, up to date CSR information disclosure (Wanderly et al, 2008). He a rgued that the Internet is the predominant tool in CSR information communication. According to Wanderly et al. (2008), the Internet can disclose CSR information any time and it remains permanently available on the Web, allowing users to choose what content he or she wants to access. Also, by using corporate websites to conduct CSR communication,
35 corporations can enjoy low cost, fast Internet speeds and a fully controlled power over what kinds of CSR information they want to publish. Pollach (2003) argued th at the communication media brochures and informative kits. Websites can also be an instant multimedia communication channel and report more timely CSR information th an an annual report (Hunter& Bansal, 2007). Capriotti and Moreno (2007) also identified interactivity as one of the major advantages of communicating through the Internet. As a result, since the 1990s, an increasing number of companies are using corporate websites to disclose CSR information to all its stakeholders (Wanderly et al 2008). perspectives regarding CSR to all its stakeholders which led to a ballooning corporate presence on the web. Esrock and Leichty (1998) stated that 80% of the Fortune 500 companies addressed at least one CSR issue on the web, such as community, involvement, education and environment. But the number and kinds of social responsibility issues they presented on the web varied. In their 2000 study, they discovered the percentage had grown to 85%. They then argued that to provide a more clear picture of social responsibility issue on websites, it is important for scholars to research how the information is orga nized and presented on corporate websites (Esrock & Leichty, 2000). Sigitzer and Prexel (2008) mentioned several aspects as the competitive advantage of the CSR communication being in the public relations discipline, including differentiated target group a nalysis and segmentation and knowledge of stakeholders. However, they added that although few companies used websites as a research and communication tool to proactively correspond with publics, even fewer
36 used the medium as a two way communication to star t a dialogue with stakeholders. Kim and Rader (2010) also found out among the top 100 Fortune 500 companies, the associations. Among studies pertain to CSR communication through corporate website, Maignan and Ralston (2002) discovered differences between the U.S and European countries in terms of how companies present themselves as socially responsible. They corporate websites (Alon et al., 2010; Baughn, 2008 ; Lattemann et al., 2009), environmental a nd social reports (Jose & Lee, 2007; Lattemann et al., 2009 ), annual reports (Lattemann et al. 2009 ). In the following sections, Maignan and cation to supplement the little research conducted in the field regarding how, why and to what extent companies conducted CSR communication, especially using a stakeholder perspective to explain the differences. This study will examine CSR principles, proc esses and stakeholder issues by focusing on the web pages related to CSR issues and CSR reports on the website. CSR Reports on Corporate Website Considerable studies have focus on the benefits of using corporate websites to conduct corporation CSR communi cation (Wanderly et al., 2008). Other than the merits mentioned above, Pollach (2003) found that corporate websites have replaced all presentation. Golob and
37 ports is a way for organizations to provide information public what the organization has done to be responsible and should explain lapses into Based on Bhattacharya and Sen (2010), among the variety of CSR communication n channels, including TV commercials, magazine or product packaging, web pages dedicated to the CSR section on the official website; annual corporate responsibility reporting has becam e the mainstream. KPMG conducted an international survey of corporate responsibility reporting in 2008 with the result showing that nearly 80% of the largest 250 companies issued corporate responsibility reports worldwide compared to the figure of 50% in 2 005. Epstein (2008) mentioned that information of CSR should be included in making processes and According to for CSR information vary widely. Some companies have issued social and environmental reports as part of their annual reports, some have issued separate CSR reports and some even issued C SR reports for each operating division or geographic area.
38 Morhardt (2010) found that CSR reports have begun to appear regularly on printed copies. Kolk (2005) demonstrated a study by Social Investment Research Analysts Network that 79% of the Standard and Poor (S&P) companies have sections on their websites regarding sustainability policy and performance information. Forty three of the S&P 100 companies issue annual sustainabi lity reports (SIRAN, 2006). In 2005, 61% of the Global Fortune 250 companies had a section on corporate sustainability was structured and who had the overall responsibilit (Epstein, 2008, p.224). Hence, CSR reports are often considered as an important tool to Pollach (2003), Hunter and Bansal (2007) mentioned the importance of studying annual reports of corp orate communication on website. Therefore, this study includes CSR reports on the corporate website into the study scope. From a practical perspective, CSR remains difficult to operationalize, but to present CSR activities in community, in environment, tow ards employees and customer have became a usual index. all prominence of a given type of CSR in reports, news release and all CSR information instead of coding only on content in a single format. The next section begins with the theoretical background of CSR communication.
39 Why Companies Conduct CSR Com munication A Stakeholder Theory Perspective communication process in order to enlist and maintain that support from diverse publics (Gray et al., 1995). Under this general head ing, researchers have variously advanced theoretical arguments based on stakeholder theory (Clarkson, 1995; Hooghiemstra, 2000; Maignan and Ralston, 2002) and on legitimation (i.e., Campbell, 2000; Gray et al., 1995, p.500) to explain both CSR activities a nd disclosure. attracted scholars from a wide range of academic disciplines, including marketing, management, sociology and psychology (Elbing, 1970). However, Pederson (20 06) society. More over, the stakeholder perspective also made corporations achieve the recognition that they should integrated in, rather than separated from the social and environmental issues (Pederson, 2006). The CSR definition adopted by this study indicated that compan individuals and diverse societal groups is the essence of CSR. Freeman (1984) originally defines a stakeholder a concept of the stakeholder implies that various stakeholder groups such as shareholders, employees, creditors, suppliers, customers, go vernment and local
40 2006; Deegan, 2006). Accordingly, these stakeholder groups have an implicit right to learn about ey have on them. A stakeholder perspective acknowledges various stakeholders expect companies to report their activities even if the information is irrelevant to them, and even if they cannot directly play a constructive role in the survival of the organiz ation (Deegan, 2006). Although scholars ( Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Sweeney & Coughlan, 2008 ) find it CSR activities and why, how to report those activities to stakeho lders. Holder Webb et al. (2009) stressed the importance of CSR communication by encouraging companies disseminating information about the socially responsible activities that they have taken. He further explained that ethical theory perspective encourages CSR activities because Webb et al. (2009) concluded with that partaking CSR action is not enough, theoretical approaches are useful tools to guide companies carry the implication and implement practices in real life (p. 499). Advantages of a Stakeholder Perspective Considerable studies have adopted a stakeholde r perspective and emphasized the advantages of frequent interactions between companies and stakeholders if CSR communication were conducted. Pedersen (2007) suggested CSR communication and attitudes, so they can respond accordingly. Mayasari (2010) found that communication of CSR can
41 create trust between organization and stakeholders if stakeholders are aware of the ethical activities of the companies. And the information delivery can s ustain this kind of trust because stakeholder will perceive that companies have a willingness to enhance the quality standard of delivering good services. Mayasari (2010) then argued that on the contrary, the deficiencies of the CSR have the implications o f negative corporate performance in the long term. According to Tang and Li (2009), companies communicate their CSR principles, activities and processes to different stakeholders to create a favorable public image and enhance corporate reputation, which ma y lead to more investment, more sales, and an increased bottom line. In addition, Tang and Li (2009) argued companies engage in CSR communication to maintain and increase their legitimacy and to communicate their corporate values to key stakeholders. Moreo ver, Chudrhi and Wang (2007) believed of communication tools to respond to the implied mandatory nature of social reporting and disclosure. They argued that although CSR com munication may not be an accurate CSR Practices Measurement Lattemann et al. (2009) suggest to measure CSR communication through corp orate websites and to include the CSR reports on the website to acquire a better from previous studies (Ma i ghan & Raltson, 2002; Alon et al., 2009; Lattemann et al., 2009): ( 1) motives for CSR activities,
42 (2) CSR processes, (3) stakeholder issues Based on Enginkaya and Ozansoy (2009) both companies engaged in CSR communicatio n and how companies present their CSR principles and practices to stakeholders is part of the CSR effort In addition, CSR communication through various performance. Thus, in the ne xt section, this study discusses the theoretical background of CSR principles, CSR processes and stakeholder issues one by one. First, the motives for CSR practices are discussed. Wood (1991) integrated previous CSR literature reviews (Carroll, 1979; Davis 1973; Jones, 1980; Post, 1975) and developed an approach of using a corporate social performance model to identify CSR principles, CSR processes and outcomes of corporate behavior. According to Wood (1991), the assessment process of corporate social perf ormance includes; which social responsibility principles were used to motivate responsive processes, and the existence and nature of policies and programs designed to manage the fir 693). He believed that CSR principles and categories should be identified and analyzed separately. According to Wood (1991), ivators or fundamental truth, it is used to demonstrate how to distinguish
43 Since this study focuses on the content and process of CSR communication instead of discussing the outcomes of CSR, the last facet of Wo social performance model is excluded from this study. Given the nature of CSR ples, relationships is appropriate to provide a coherent structure to assess the research topic ow CSR is interpreted in this study an umbrella construct that encompasses the relationship between business and the larger society (Snider & Martin, 2003), iew (e.g., Clarkson, 1995; Maig nan, Ferrell & Hult, 1999; Swanson, 1995). These scholars proposed that business are only concerned with appeasing their stakeholders instead of society as a whole. Maignan and Ralston (2002) combined the societal and the stakeholder view of the firm and processes in place to minimize its negative impacts and maximize its positive impacts on selected stakeholder issues" (p.498). According to Heath and Ni (2008), the motives of CSR can be positi ve or negative attributed to companies and may change the perception of publics to respond favorably or disagreeably to the company. Thus, When it comes to analyzing principles un derlying the motivations driving
44 the economic and duty aligned perspectives. He suggested to use three main types of motivations driving corporations committed CSR. First, following a utilitarian perspective, CSR can be regarded as an instrument useful to help achieve its performance objectives defined in terms of profitability, return on investment, sales volume. Secondly, according to the negative duty approach, businesse s are compelled to adopt social responsibility initiatives in order to conform to stakeholder norms defining appropriate behavior. Third, the positive duty view suggests that businesses may be self motivated to have a positive impact regardless of social p ressures calling for CSR initiatives (Maignan & Ralston, 2002. p. 498). framework to investigate the principles motivating corporations to conduct CSR by ns as 1) performance driven, 2) stakeholder driven, and 3) value driven ( as s hown in the F igure 2 1 ). Mayasari (2011) further elaborated the above three principles that behind He explained that the stakeholder demand of stakeholders including non governmental action, government, and pressure driven is based on the consumption of performing et hically by doing good business, despite communicating socially responsible messages driven by financial gains. Value motives, such as corporate image improvements, preempting legal penalties, a s well as the intrinsic motives such as commitment to social and environmental issues.
45 The second category to analyze CSR practice is CSR processes of which focus on (2009), Latemann et al managerial procedures and instruments employed by companies to bring their employed by t he companies to realize their motivational principles. CSR processes consist of programs or activities that foster the realization of CSR within a corporation divided CSR processes that appeared on the corporate websites into seven categories: (1) Philanthropy programs, (2) Sponsorships, (3) Volunteerism, (4) Codes of ethics, (5) Quality programs, (6) Health and safety programs, and (7) Management of environmental impacts. Alon et al. (2009) stated that CSR processes which include all kinds of socially responsible programs and activities will foster the realization of CSR within a corporation. In addition, each program and activities add volume and contribute to a may occur of these seven processes because they are not mutually exclusive. The third category to define and observe CSR initiatives is described as stakeholder issues addressed in th e corporate website. Based on Maignan and Ralston
46 (2002), stakeholder issues are concerns of importance to the groups that can directly or indirectly affect or be affected by the firm's activities (Clarkson, 1995). For example, of community stakeholder is sues, four c ategories were defined maybe affected by objects linked to the arts or the national culture arts and culture, or support activities improving educational opp ortunities, or claim to make dedication to improving the quality of life and wellbeing of the communities. Holder Webb et al. (2009) argued that firms should obtain the support and approval not only from its primary stakeholders without their support the firm cannot function at all, including customers, suppliers, or providers of labor and capital; but also from its secondary stakeholders, those who are indirectly affiliated but in a position to ors and media (Clarkson, 1995). Based on Clarkson (1995) stakeholder classification, five kinds of stakeholders and what kind of CSR activities are target on them are identified for this study: 1. Community Stakeholders 1) Arts and culture : The company di scusses its support of organizations, activities, actors, and objects linked to the arts or the national culture. 2) Education : The company presents its support of activities aimed at improving educational opportunities and the quality of the education re ceived by populations outside the firm. 3) Quality of life : The company expresses its dedication to improving the quality of life and well being of the communities in which the firm operates, or of society as a whole.
47 4) Safety: The company displays conc ern for the safety of the persons in the communities surrounding its productive operations. 2. Customer Stakeholders 1) Quality : The company presents the achievement of high product/service quality as a part of its commitment to social responsibility. 2 ) Safety : The company displays concern for the safety of its customers in relations with its production activities or product/services. 3. Employee Stakeholders 1) Equal Opportunity : The company expresses its commitment to giving the same chances in recr uitment and promotion to all employees regardless of race, gender, age, or handicap. 2) Health and Safety : The company expresses its concern for protecting the safety of employees in the working along with their overall health level. 4. Shareholders The company expresses its commitment to the involvement of stakeholders in corporate governance and/ or to the proper information of shareholders. 5. Suppliers The company expresses its dedication to giving equal opportunities to suppliers in terms of gender Based on the literature review about three dimensions: CSR motives, CSR research questions are proposed:
48 RQ 2 : Wha t are the differences of the CSR principles that motivate the U.S. and Chinese Fortune 500 companies as evidenced by their CSR communication on the corporate website? principles? 2b) Wha principles? RQ 3: What are the differences regarding their CSR processes on their corporate website of the U.S. and Chinese Fortune 500 companies? 3a) What is the most frequent CSR process to ap pear on the U.S Fortune 500 3b) What is the most frequent CSR process to appear on Chinese Fortune 500 RQ 4: What are the differences of the U.S. and Chinese Fortune 500 companies regarding the f ocus on stakeholder issues on their corporate website? 4a) What stakeholder issue most frequently appears on the U.S Fortune 500 4b) What stakeholder issue most frequently appear appears on Chinese Fortune orate website. CSR Communication Regarding Country Difference Scholars argued that differences in national context will be reflected in corpora al 2009). Maignan and Ralston (2002) found great varieties in CSR reporting bet ween companies in France, the Netherlands, the UK and the U.S that each country has their most concerned stakeholder groups. For
49 example, U.S companies put community stakeholders as the priority in CSR communication agenda and devote more energy and fina ncial support in the philanthropy and educational programs which are not directly related to their business activities. According to Maignan and Ralston (2002), U.S. firms paid very limited attention to the two customer issues high quality and customer saf ety and to the two employee issues equal opportunity and employee health and safety. Their result confirmed the earlier conclusions drawn from the analysis of the CSR processes: in order to build the image as responsible organizations, U.S. firms had a ten dency to focus on issues linked to the welfare of the community, while putting aside the activities closely associated with their production and operations. Asian countries discover ed different penetration levels of CSR communication by studies regarding CSR content evalu s and Chambers study result, it is argued that the greater the extent of the communication and reporting on corporate website, the more engaged the company is and devoted to CSR. Chambers et al. (2003) argued that western countries perform a higher level of CSR than Asian countries. In the global public relations field, Sriramesh and Vercic (2003) proposed a theoretical framework for academics and professionals, including media environment and societal culture. When it comes to the variable of infrastructure, Signitzer and Prexel (2008) argued CSR
50 communication is more likely to happen in countries with liberal market systems position to take over functions that companies the part of their responsibility which it cannot afford. Intensity of CSR communication When it comes to the extent o r the intensity of CSR communication, this study distinguishes between companies that devote relatively extensive attention to CSR from those that treat it on a more cursory level by documenting the volume of CSR processes and stakeholder issues. Chambers et al. (2003) believed that in general terms, the greater the extent of reporting, the more engaged the company is with CSR and the more seriously CSR communication is taken. Therefore, to measure the intensity of opt the general approach from Lattemann reports available on the website and (2) to document the presence of CSR measurement items, including CSR process, stakeholder issu es (Morhardt,2010). These categories were used to give an overall picture of the intensity of CSR communication and levels of reporting rather than the content per se (Chapple & Moon, 2005).Although these indicators might seem arbitrary in nature, they wer e applied consistently across studies to provide comparison between countries(Alon et al., 2009; Latemann et al., 2010; Maignan & Ralston, 2002 ). Therefore, this study is interested in investigating the extent of coverage that a company devotes to CSR com munication by examining corporate website pages and the CSR reports using the approach mentioned above to compare the CSR
51 communication scope in the U.S. and China. Hence, the following research question is proposed: RQ5 : What are the differences of the e xtent/intensity that China and the U.S. Fortune 500 companies engaged in CSR communication on their corporate websites?
52 Figure 2 1. CSR p rinciple categorization
53 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Content Analysis According to Gray and Lavers (1995), content anal ysis has been widely used in technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data to in Sweeney and Coughlan, 2008. p.116). Given the descriptive nature of the topic CSR communication with several categorizations in CSR processes, and stakeholder issues, this study employs qualitative content analysis as the resea rch method. Qualitative interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of 5, p.1278). Therefore, an in depth content analysis is used to addresses the weaknesses that quantitative approach cannot analyze the specific content of the CSR communication. The top 50 firms of the U.S and China from the list of Fortune 500 company in dices were selected as of November 2011. The Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/full_list/) list of rankings of businesses was used as sources in the U.S and China respectively. There are 50 Chinese companies listed on the Fortune 500 list (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/countries/China.html), therefore, altogether the top 50 of the U.S companies in Fortune 500 are selected as the unit of sample analysis. Efforts were made to include only companies t hat headquartered in the respective country China and the U.S (Maignan, Ralston, 2002).
54 Also, if the Fortune 500 company is a group company, only the group company website acti vities. Coding Data This study focuses exclusively on corporate websites because it is designed to 2000, p.329). Next, the procedure sought information related to CS R which defined in demonstrating the inclusion of social and environmental concern in business operations and in interactions with stakehol ( Van Marewijk, 2003. p. 2) from web pages thoroughly. Every web p age of the corporate website was coded to look for content related to CSR motives, CSR categorization (see Table3 1). Since this study considers CSR as an umbrella construct, based on M aignan and Ralston (2002), the information related to CSR is further defined e analysis. As mentioned in the literature review, Prexel (2008) stressed people in different countries articulate distinct names for the concept of CSR. For example, some companies chose to put CSR websites, thi s study began with analyzing the CSR terms presented and used on the
55 specific sections solely devoted to CSR practices on corporate websites, to investigate whether differences exist in that how China and the U.S view the CSR concept. Following up the fir st part of analysis, the major part of this study next attempted to communication. Based on the assumption that reporting, transparency, and accountability contribute to co ngruence between CSR communication and actions, this part of the content analysis adopted Maign an and Raltson (2002) method to investigate the differences between the content of CSR communication on websites by examining CSR motives, CSR processes, and sta keholder issues that companies presented on web pages. To compare the CSR communication between the U.S companies, this study began with analyzing the content disclosed on websites. First, to analyze which principles motivated a co adopted from Maignan& Ralston (2002) was employed to categorize the general statement of the specific relevant section of CSR on the website. These are the principles and examples of principles motivating CSR from Maignan and Ralston (2002): The category includes value driven, stakeholder driven and performance driven principles (See Appendix A ). Next, to analyze which managerial CSR processes and stakeholder issues are demonstrated on the U.S and Chinese corpora te website, this study still employed website s any information, programs, activities and the reports available on the website
56 were analyzed to see whether they meet the require ments of the measurement items in the category of CSR proc esses and stakeholder issues. (S ee Appendix A ). Following the approach developed by Maignan and Ralston (2002), the researcher measured corporate communications about CSR and CSR reports as publicly available documents from corporate website s Any reports related to social and environmental performance or reports under the website CSR special section are included into the sample. This study included CSR reports because according to Epstein (2008), CS R the greater the extent of the reporting, the more engaged the company devoted to CSR. Thus, the presence of CSR reporting was regarded as an indicator to investigate the to CSR issues reports on the website was coded not only to compare the content of C SR communication but also to compare the overall CSR communication intensity of China and the U.S. and the intensity of corporate communications about CSR was captured. The depende nt CSR variable was measured as follows if a firm discussed any of the seven categories of CSR processes in one of its corporate communications web pages, it received one point. If the firm discussed the CSR processes in its formal CSR report, it receive d another point. Similarly, a firm received one point for any discussion addressing any CSR stakeholder issues for the five stakeholder groups: community, customers, employees, shareholders and suppliers. Thus, each CSR process and stakeholder
57 issues has a communication activities and their different focus on specific CSR issues. The literature to measure the measure on a large are broadly communicating CSR activities, processes to accomplish a positive image or to gai n legitimacy and support from stakeholders (Bondy, Matten, & Moon, 2008; Husted & Allen, 2006). Thus, the lack of involvement of CSR communication can be interpreted as a sign of lack of awareness of its merits and importance, suggesting a low level of CSR of CSR processes and stakeholder issues of the U.S or China, and compare their Similar studies have also used this dependent variable (e.g., Maignan & Ralston, 2002). As discussed earlier, although CSR communications need to be examined with some caution, they are still among the best and most reliable sources of information about ple & Moon, 2005). Lattemann et used the same approach (2009) and their validity check showed that this measure of CSR communications had a high correlation with an independent data source that measures the CSR ac This study conducted a comprehensive search in all the above mentioned public sources during January 2012 and February 2012. To guarantee a consistent base of
58 coded data, the data analysis on CSR reports and fir was carried out by only one single person and was checked and verified by others. To assure the coder reliability and the validity of the coding schemes, another coder analyzed 10% of the corporate websites, including five U.S companies and five Chinese companies, to document CSR terms, CSR principles, CSR processes, and stakeholder issues. To test the intercoder reliability, each variable were aggregated and compare to Regarding the value driven principle, the reliability level is 0.63. The reliability level for performance driven principle is 0.91 and for stakeholder driven principle is 0.83. So the average reliability for CSR principle is 0.79. The av erage reliability level for CSR process, including seven variables is 0.87. The average reliability level for stakeholder issues, including eleven variables is 0.83. Thus, the average intercoder reality reaches 0.83 which was considered satisfactory given the small sample being tested.
59 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS This chapter presents the result of comparing CSR terms used on websites, CSR processes, stakeholder issues and overall CSR communication intensity between the U.S and China Fortune 500 companies in ord er to answer the research questions. In addition, differences between CSR communication formats and content of two U.S and of China were coded for CSR terms used, CSR process and stakeholder issues on each corporate websites and on CSR reports, either in the form of an attached PDF document or as an e mbedded report of which identified itself with a RQ1: Differences between CSR S ection T erms on the U.S and Chi nese W ebsite Research Question 1 asked about the differences in the CSR terms used by the U.S. and Chinese Fortune 500 corporations on their corporate websites. To answer this research question the researcher looked at every page on the corporate site, se arching key words in the coding sheet. The research especially focus ed on the homepage and the CSR section attributed to C SR issues to see if there existed a general term for the CSR section so that the corporat ions can report their CSR activities there. A s Table 4 1 demonstrates, the most frequently used CSR terms on the U.S ). Out of fifty U.S Fortune 500 companies, 12 presented Corporate Responsibility as a separate section on the webpage to report their CSR activities. However, 24.5% (12) U.S companies use diverse CSR terms or put CSR issues in
60 different sections, so thes e situations fell into the other category. For example, Fannie Mae reported about CSR issues in three parts called Community Outreach Diversity and Inclusion, several sub headings to report its CSR, namely: S upporting Communities Corporate Philanthropy Environment Sponsorships Bank of America Community Volunteers Other examples included HP use d information with the public, Car dinal Health used Community Relations to report its CSR activities. The second most frequently used CSR term was Corporate Citizenship (20.8%), 10 U.S companies used it while only two Chinese companies (5.7%) adopt this term. Sustainability (15.1%) is the third most frequently used CSR terms; it is adopted by seven U.S companies. As seen in Table 3 1, s eventeen Chinese Fortune 500 companies use Corporate Social Responsibility (34%) to report their CSR activities. Another frequently used CSR term is Socia website to communicate about CSR activities while no U.S company use it. Also as noted for U.S companies, 18.9% (9) of the Chinese companies used diverse CSR terms without an overall t erm to report their CSR activities. Information related to CSR company introduction, or corporate culture. For example, China National Petroleum used Environment and Society whic h include sub sections, such as Environment, Health, Safety, Public Welfare. Nobel Group used Respo nsibility in general to report its
61 In summary, the result demonstrates that Chinese and the U.S Fortune 500 because of the relatively high percentage of frequency. The difference mainly lies in whether the company regard CSR concept more towards the corporate side in which it use s Responsibil ity, or use s the most common term Corporate Social Responsibility in the CSR field to find a balance between the corporate and the society. The differences between CSR terms also indicated that each company understanding and different focus of the CSR cons truct. RQ2: CSR P rinciples Motivating Fortune 500 C ompanies Research Question 2 asked about the differences in CSR principles that motivate the U.S and China Fortune 500 companies. To assess it, the coder looks at every web pages of the corporate websit e but focus on CSR section of which usually includes all sections that company frequently uses to communicate about CSR motives. This study also conducts difference in proport ions test to compare the CSR principle and the result shows the difference is not statistically significant at a 95% level. Therefore, CSR differences exist between the U .S and China. The U.S companies documented 91 CSR principles in total, 94 principles were found of Chinese companies. The most frequently used CSR principle both of the U.S
62 and Chinese Fortune 500 companies is the stakeholder driven principle. Forty fi ve percent of the U.S companies demonstrated this principle on their websites. Forty Chinese companies talked about stakeholder driven principle and it account for 42.6% prefer stakeholder driven principle to performance driven principle, then to value driven principle. Thirty two China Fortune 500 companies adopt performance driven (34%) principles and this figure for the U.S is 27(29.7%). Moreover, value driven princip le is the least favored principle by companies both in the U.S (25.3%) and in China (23.4%). It appears that U.S companies adopt stakeholder driven and value driven principles more frequently than Chinese companies. Ninety five of 100 companies in two co untries discussed about at least one CSR principles. The analysis shows that most of companies present two CSR principles in their Web sites. In addition, no significance difference was found in all three CSR principles. RQ 3: CSR Processes Comparison Res earch question 3 asked, What are the differences of the CSR principles that motivate the U.S. and Chinese Fortune 500 companies as evidenced by their CSR communication on the corporate website? To assess this research question, the coder first looked at pages and documented each CSR process. Then if the company presents the CSR report, the coder also looked at it to see if the CSR processes were presented. As Table 4 4 shows, philanth ropic programs were the most discussed category of CSR processes which account for 18.1% among all the presented processes. Also, 18.1% (84) of the CSR processes presented by U.S Fortune 500 companies were about
63 Sponsorship, it is more likely to be mentio ned than the Quality Program (14%) which is the least mentioned CSR process. Other than Philanthropy programs, Management of environmental impact is another CSR process that Chinese companies focus on which account for 18% of the total CSR processes presen ce. Sponsorships and volunteer programs were mentioned together almost all companies, but the U.S companies demonstrate a higher level of commitment than China Fortune 500 companies in these two categories. But China companies demonstrate more interest i n producing Quality Program as one of the CSR processes than their U.S counterparts. Between two countries, Health and safety programs were found in common. The biggest differences exist in the extent of Code of Ethics as one of the CSR processes. Among a ll CSR processes reported by U.S companies, 15.6% of it was about Ethics while it only accounted for 3.0% of the CSR processes of Chinese companies. Altogether, Code of Ethics was also the least mentioned CSR process. RQ 4: Comparison of Stakeholder Issue s Research Question 4 asks which stakeholder issues were presented by businesses as the main targets of their CSR practices and it demonstrated that the U.S and China companies focused differently on stakeholder groups. The coder classified nine stakehol der issues into five groups of stakeholders: community, customer, employee, shareholder, and supplier. The result demonstrates that Community stakeholder issue was the most preferred stakeholder groups both of the U.S and Chinese Fortune 500 companies. W hen it comes to community stakeholders, they are the most concerned stakeholder groups both of China and U.S Fortune 500 companies (See Table 4 5).
64 Forty two percent of the stakeholder issues (273 times) were about CSR activities, such as education progra ms, dedication to improve the quality of community life that target on community stakeholders. These stakeholder issues were either mentioned on China company information, and o n CSR reports. Although China Fortune 500 companies in total mention community stakeholders slightly less than the U.S counterparts, their communication intensity percentage (38%) was higher than U.S (42%). In addition, as Table 4 5 shows, to engage in t he dialogue with community stakeholders, China companies demonstrated their commitment through communicating issues to Education (12.2%, 79 times) and then Quality of Community Life (11.6%, 75times). U.S companies emphasize more on their dedication to Qua lity of Community Life (11.7%, 85 times) than the issue of Education (11.4%, 83 times) and more than Community Safety (10.2%, 74 times), Arts and Culture (5.1%, 31 times). Among all the stakeholder issues ure is the least mentioned (6.1%) item. But China companies (7.3%) favor more about Arts and Culture issue and mentioned it more frequently than their U.S counterparts (5.1%). China Fortune 500 companies mentioned Product Quality (12.5%) more frequently than Customer Safety (9.6%) of the customer stakeholder groups while U.S companies communicate more equally about Customer Safety (9.8%) and Product Quality (10.2%). U.S companies demonstrated a higher level of communicating about employee stakeholder i ssues than Chinese companies, 19.6% of stakeholder issues reported by U.S companies were about employees while this figure for China is 17%, especially the
65 issue of Employee Equal Opportunity were mentioned far more among U.S Fortune 500 companies (10.7% ) than among the Chinese ones (6.2%). In addition, both countries show similar interest in communicating about the shareholder issues and it account for 11.3% in their overall stakeholder issue communication. But when it comes to supplier issue, it only a ccount for 7% for Chinese companies devote 11% RQ 5: Overall CSR C ommunication Intensity of China and the U.S. Fortune 500 C ompanies Research question 5 asks the differences between the extent/intens ity that China and the U.S. Fortune 500 companies engaged in CSR communication on their corporate websites. As mentioned in the methodology, if a company discussed any CSR processes or stakeholder issues on webpage, it acquired one point. And if the compan y discussed any CSR processes or stakeholder issues on the CSR report, it acquired another point. Thus, to answer RQ5, the data of points of CSR processes and stakeholder issues appeared on both corporate web pages and CSR reports were added together and a nalyzed. In total, China Fortune 500 companies acquired 468 points in CSR processes and 647 points in stakeholder issues while the U.S Fortune 500 companies acquired 467 points in CSR processes and 728 points in stakeholder issues ( See Table 4 6). Overal l, U.S companies scored a little higher (1195) than Chinese companies (1115) and the difference between their intensity was statistically at a 95% level. In summary seven out of 50 Chinese Fortune 500 companies that is 14% have not use CSR reports to com municating CSR activities, including China Railway Group,
66 China Post Group and Jiangsu Shangang Group. Among these companies, Citic Group, China Post Group and Jiangsu Shag ang Group did not even have any CSR sections that devoted to disclose CSR information. Five of the Chinese Fortune 500 companies only provided a single report on the section of CSR activities, so more information is gathered through an extensive research o f the corporate website, including the section releases. In contrast, 12% U.S Fortune 500 companies did not have CSR reports. Six percent of the U.S companies communicated CS R activities through their annual report. Two U.S Fortune 500 companies, Berkshire Hathaway and American International Group do not communicate anything related to CSR activities. To sum up, U.S Fortune 500 companies mentioned more CSR processes and sta keholder issues than Chinese Fortune 500 companies and acquired a higher score in overall CSR communication intensity. But no significant statistical differences were found among CSR process and stakeholder issue category. However, differences regarding th e content, the format of CSR communication were found and documented during the content analysis. Differences of CSR Communication Content and Format Overall, this study shows the percentage, the extent of companies reporting their activities is convincin g, but not all through the format of web pages and reports. 18% of the Chinese top 50 Fortune 500 companies still lack of a CSR section and mainly use press release as the way to communicate with stakeholder about their CSR activities CSR process and stak eholder issues.
67 During the content analysis of the U.S and China Fortune 500 corporate website, an interesting phenomenon to notice is the differences of the format of CSR reports. This study recorded that 10 U.S fortune 500 company have to use several w eb pages as a interactive CSR report to directly report CSR initiatives to various stakeholders instead of attaching a CSR report separately as a document for downloading and reading. These companies embedded the CSR report to the corporate web pages and t he content was the same in the web page and in the report. For example, Walmart, HP, following explanation for changing the format of CSR reports. (http://www.conocophillips.co m/EN/susdev/Pages/index.aspx) Development Report to communicate the key areas of our performance that are of interest to stakeholders. Based on stakeholder feedback, we have cha nged our reporting method by using our website as the key resource, supplemented by a printed summary. More details on how we choose the topics included in our reports may be e realized the advantages of using website reporting and the importance of engaging in a stakeholder dialogue in CSR communication. Conoco Philips also pointed out the importance of communicating its sustainability performance to stakeholders through dialo gue in different business units, in Alaska, Australasia, Canada and China. The company encourages these units to produce their own sustainable development reports to communicate performance and engage with local and regional stakeholders, as well as formal reports associated with their local
68 regulatory processes. PepsiCo also offered the option of downloading the complete CSR reports or created a category for web user to choose category or issues they concerned most about, by checking the boxes to select sp ecific sections of the site to create one PDF. Some U.S corporations even build a separate website exclusively for reporting CSR issues. Take GE for example, it builds a separate Corporate Citizenship site:http://www.gecitizenship.com/. Chinese companies have not start this practice. Another feature demonstrate the interactivity of reporting through corporate website is that UnitedHealth Group embedded its Global Citizenship Report and provide users the feature to choose which category they want to read, i ncluding environment, community, employee and company information. Users are able to build and save or print a custom report containing only those sections they interested in. And the full Report is also available at the website as a PDF, but larger files. Also, one Chinese company, COFCO adopted this feature by producing interactive CSR reports. It is also observed that during the content analysis, CSR reports generally provide is sues than web pages. For example, U.S companies, such as Mckesson, JP Morgan, report of which indicated as GRI index. However, these CSR processes were not found in the web page. This case is even more common among Chinese companies. The majority of the CSR processes and issues were acquired from the CSR reports. For example, Chinese companies mention Employee Equal Opportunity far more frequently
69 in their CSR reports th an on web pages, including China National Petroleum China Construction Bank and China North Industries Group, to name a few. ctivities scattered. Only seven companies disclose CSR process and stakeholder issues exclusively on their specific CSR section and provide CSR reports in the CSR section while other the form of press releases, and scatter the information on separate web pages. Furthermore, only two Chinese companies, China Moble Communications, Hutchison Whampoa embedded CSR reports content on web pages and Hutchison Whampoa is based in Hong Kong. Als o, none Chinese company build a separate website to report its CSR activities.
70 Table 4 1 Comparison of the CSR terms that m anage the CSR s ection CSR Term China Fortune 500 Companies U.S Fortune 500 Companies Total Corporate Social Responsibility 34% 7.6% 42.60%(20) Corporate responsibility 5.7% 22.7% 28.40%(14) Social Responsibility 34% 0 34%(17) Corporate Citizenship 5.7% 20.8% 26.50%(13) Other 18.9% 24.5% 43.40%(21) Sustainability 3.8% 15.1% 18.90%(8) Sustainable development 3.8% 3.8% 7.60%(2) Corporate Governance 3.8% 5.7% 9.60%(3) Business Ethics 0 3.8% 3.80%(1) Community and development 3.8% 3.8% 7.6%%(2) Table 4 2 Comparison of CSR p rinciples in the U.S and China CSR Principles China Fortune 500 U.S Fortune 500 Tota l Difference in Proportion Value driven 23.4% 25.3% 24.3 % (45) N.S Performance driven 34% 29.7% 31.9 % (59) N.S Stakeholder driven 42.6% 45.1% 43.8 % (91) N.S
71 Table 4 3 Comparison of CSR p rocesses p resence in the U.S and China F ortune 500 c ompanies CSR Processes China Fortune 500 Companies ( N=50) U.S Fortune 500 Companies ( N=50) Total Difference in Proportion Philanthropic programs 18.2% 18.2% 18.2%(170) N.S Sponsorships 14.5% 18.1% 16.3%(152) N.S Volunteerism 14. 3% 17.1% 15.7%(147) N.S Code of ethics 3.0% 15.6% 9.3%(87) Quality program 15.6% 14.1% 14.9%(139) N.S Health and safety program 16.1% 16.1% 16.1(151) N.S Management of environment impact 18.2% 17.1% 17.6%(165) N.S Total CSR processes I ntensity 468 467 100% (935) N.S Note: indicate sample does not satisfy the standard binomial requirement that n*p and n(1 p) must both be equal to or greater than 5, where n=samples size and p=percentage
72 Table 4 4 Stakeholder issues c ategorized b y s takeholder g roups Stakeholder Issues China Fortune 500 Companies(F requency) U.S Fortune 500 Companies( Frequency) Total(Frequ ency) Difference in Proportion Community Stakeholders 42% (273) 38%(279) 40.1%(552) N.S Arts and culture 7.30% 5.10% 6.1%(84) Educatio n 12.20% 11.40% 11.8%(162) N.S Quality of life 11.60% 11.70% 11.6%(160) N.S Community Safety 11.10% 10.20% 10.6%(146) N.S Customer Stakeholders 22% (143) 20%( 145 ) 20.9%(288) N.S Product/Service Quality 12.50% 10.20% 11.3%(155) N.S Customer Safety 9.60% 9.80% 9.7%(133) N.S Employee Stakeholders 17.3% (113) 19.6%(143) 18.6%(256) N.S Equal Opportunity 6.20% 10.70% 8.6%(118) Health and Safety 11.30% 8.90% 10%(138) N.S Shareholders 11.3% (73) 11.3%(82) 11.3%(155) N.S Suppliers 7.0% (45) 10.9%(79) 9.0%(124) Total Frequency 47.1%(647) 52.9%(728) 100%(1375) Statistically different Note: indicate sample does not satisfy the standard binomial requirement that n*p and n(1 p) must both be equal to or greater than 5, where n=samples size and p=percentage. Table 4 5 CSR c ommunication intensity c omparison CSR Communication Intensity China Fortune 500 Companies U.S Fortune 500 Companies Total Difference in Proportion CSR Reports 49.4%(43) 50.6%(44) 100%(87) N.S Total CS R processes 50.1%(468) 49.9%(467) 100%(935) N.S Total Stakeholder Issues 47.1%(647) 52.9%(728) 100%(1375) Statistically Different Total CSR Communication Score 48.3%(1115) 51.7%(1195) 100%(2310) N.S
73 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION This chapter covers (1) summary of results, (2) theoretical implications, (3) practical implications, and (4) limitations and future research. Summary of Results This study provides detailed answers to five research questions regarding the c omparison between China and the U.S CSR principles, stakeholder issues and CSR communication intensity by conducting a qualitative content analysis. 100 corporate websites including web pages and CSR reports were analyzed and results were as follows. Findings clearly showed that companies in the U.S and China have different perspectives on 1) the understanding of CSR construct and 2) what CSR processes are more important to emphasize 3) which stakeholder issues de serve more attention. CSR Section Terms As mentioned in the literature review that CSR is a well known expression, but its multi appellations (Moon, 2002, p.3). The most frequently used terms to manage CSR section Capriotti and Moreno (2007) suggested the concept of corporate citizenship incorporated a global focus and the stakeholder perspective into CSR, it was assumed that Chinese companies need to embrace the global perspective and concerned more about using a stakeholder approach when communicating CSR. In addition, Herrmann (2004)
74 observed that Sustainability was a broader concept than CSR with an emphasis on U.S companies foc us more about the environment aspect in the connotation of CSR than Chinese companies. In total, 43.4% of the U.S and China Fortune 500 companies used diverse CSR terms other than what have mentioned in the literature review to manage the CSR section. Th erefore, the findings proved that companies have different focus on certain issue when communicating CSR practices because their communication approach was 2009). However as the literature review suggested the lack of consensus in CSR concept would hamper CSR practice and communication, this study supports the view and calls for a universally agreed CSR term to manage CSR section but encourage companies to define CSR base d on their understanding in the sub headings or sub category. CSR principle Comparison This study demonstrates that Fortune 500 companies, whether they are in the U.S or in China have realized the importance of engaging in a multi stakeholder dialogue in CSR communication. The stakeholder driven principle was the preferred CSR motive among the U.S and China Fortune 500 companies and accounted for 43.8% of all the CSR principles mentioned on websites. This result was in accordance with the literature revie CSR communication (Maignan & Ralston, 2002). Literature review indicated that companies of which adopting stakeholder driven principle were compelled to conduct CSR practices to conform to stakeholder norms,
75 thus, to define the appropriate behavior and do the right thing. The dominant role of the stakeholder driven principle in both countries demonstrated the appropriateness of employing the stakeholder approach when commutating CSR. Thus, it is suggested business should react to the demand of stakeholders to maintain a good relationship with them (Mayasari, 2011). Although 42.6% of the Chinese companies presented their CSR motive as stakeholder driven and the involvement was pret ty high, the figure was still lower than U.S 95% level. During the content analysis, the coder found Chinese companies adopted the stakeholder driven principle by highlig hting the idea of building a harmonious society and maintaining good relationship with people and the society; therefore, perhaps y is based on Ping An's desire to give back the enterprise's internal harmonious develop ment and the second by maintaining the harmony between the enterprise's internal and external environment. Shenhua Group driven perspective may have a lot to do with the heightened importance of the idea of Harmonious Society and Chinese the importance of
76 2007). Later in the same year, China passed the first Labor Contract La w to protect labor rights. Comparison of CSR Processes and Stakeholder Issues Philanthropic program was the most addressed CSR process both in China and the U.S. Sponsorship, volunteerism, and management of environment impact were the most likely mentione d processes of the U.S companies. program, management of environment impact, quality program, health and safety issue was the more likely mentioned issue, code of ethics was the l east one. The focus on international image is usually associated with human rights abuses, substandard products, sweatshops, and serious environmental pollution. Hence, with recent growth of the Chinese CSR initiatives, more CSR processes have target on to solve these with them by CSR communication. Regarding specific CSR processes differe nces between these two countries, several phenomena deserve other research attention: the philanthropy programs in China were always presented as the form of donation, and lots of the donations go to disaster relief. Without a charity or foundation, the do nations activities may not be well organized and become a one time thing. When it comes to volunteerism or sponsorship as CSR processes, most of them are presented on the web pages in the category of Media center or in the form of news release. Another CSR processes and the stakeholder issue with a relatively high presence is the information pertaining to Health
77 and Safety Program, Formal Quality Program and consideration of Quality Product/Service to customers of Chinese companies. These CSR issues are com monly found on the section of company products/services on website instead of the CSR section, may causing difficulties for users to identify those product or quality, and health and safety information as CSR initiative. It also took more time and clicks t o locate those information if they are not presented in the CSR section. The above problems communication. tion that stakeholder driven principle was the most discussed principle both in China and in the U.S and they focused on community stakeholders than other stakeholder groups during website CSR reporting. Another important indication from the findings was that both countries paid substantial attention to different stakeholders groups. Among all the stakeholder issues, U.S Fortune 500 companies devoted 38% information to communicate and target on community stakeholders; 19.9% issues was used to target on cu stomer stakeholders, 19.6% issues was targeting on employee stakeholders, 11.3% of it was targeting on shareholders and 10.9% was targeting on suppliers. The figure for China was 42%, 22.1%, 17.3%, 11.3% and 7.0% accordingly. Findings of this study suggest ed that each stakeholder groups received some level of attention. As mentioned in the literature review, stakeholder perceptions of CSR activities (Bhattacharya et al., 200 7; Klein & Dawar, 2004). To encourage a multi
78 stakeholder dialogue in CSR communication, companies gradually shifted their focus from the shareholders of which were the second least mentioned stakeholders in this study, to a wide variety of groups. Result of stakeholder issues demonstrated that companies were trying to strike a balance between each stakeholder groups but mainly targeting on community stakeholders because it is assumed that community stakeholder may contain other stakeholder groups (Bhattach arya et al., 2008). Based on the result, U.S community stakeholders than customers, or employees, and they addressed shareholders, and suppliers the least which was the same order for Chinese corporations. Th is study echoes the Maignan and Ralston (2002) findings that community stakeholders were U.S the Quality of Community life and education were the two issues the most mentioned by U.S. firms. This is the same as Chinese companies. CSR Communication Intensity on Corporate Websites Considerable studies have demonstrated the benefits of using corporate websites to conduct CSR communication. Only 6% of Chinese Fortune 500 companies and 4% U.S companie s did not conduct CSR communication, the impressive percentage of Chinese and U.S corporate websites have become the mainstream medium for companies to conduct CSR communication. Also, t he wide variety of stakeholder groups and issues covered in on proved its role as a useful tool to reflect rse publics (Gray et al., 1995); i n addition, r eplacing the role of print traditional media
79 level, political and culture system, significant differences may exist in how the United States and Chinese approach to CSR implementa tion and communication (Hartman, Rubin, & Dhanda, 2007). However, statistical differences were only found in the percentage of total number of stakeholder issues presented on websites. U.S companies tend to communicate more CSR issues to target more stake holder groups. It was expected in the literature review that the U.S as a highly developed economy will perform much better in communicating CSR activities. However, b ased on the slightly difference of CSR communication intensity, this study result indicat es that Chinese Fortune 500 companies have embraced the CSR fashion and largely engaged in CSR communication on corporate websites, especially when it comes to Fortune 500 companies, which most of them are multinational companies. They are more likely to a dopt CSR than companies operating solely in the home country (Chapple & Matten, 2005). To meet the ever increasing competitiveness in the global market, their business practices are increasingly subject to international industry standards. These above rea communications do not lag behind their U.S counterparts. The variety of CSR processes and stakeholder issues in each country and their different focus also in accordance with the literat communications of CSR are determined not only by the complicated context among companies, governments, NGOs, other stakeholders in the Chinese society, but also by the institutional pressure fro m both the domestic and the global communities.
80 The findings also reflect a significant increase in the overall number of CSR processes, stakeholder issues of the U.S companies in comparison with Maignan and cess has mainly fallen into the customer stakeholder groups and employee stakeholder groups. According to Silberhorn and Warren (2007), the broadening CSR notion has an impact on how the company conducts its CSR activities and communicates them. Comparing the result to Maignan positive impact on stakeholders. Although community stakeholder still addressed as the most important target audience in CSR communication among both U.S and China Fortune 500 companies demonstrate a keen interest in customers and employees, especially among Chinese corporations. This study reconfirm the argument of communication in Chinese society has improved despite that the society is generally considered secretive. Qu and Leung stated that Chinese listed companies are more willing to provide voluntary information in their ann ual reports as a result of the changed cultural environment. They also discovered that 85 percent of 120 companies made CSR disclosure and the most frequently area is stakeholder interest, especially regard to social and environmental performance. As disc ussed in the literature review, recent years witnessed a significant increase in the number of major companies to consider their social responsibility credits and produced web based report to be socially responsible (Sweeney & Coughlan, 2008). Furthermore, a large amount of research has demonstrated the importance of
8 1 communicating CSR through corporate websites by covering the benefits of the Internet. In addition, stakeholders and the communities demand the organization to be more socially responsible and to communicate transparently with them. Thus, more companies disclose their CSR report voluntarily to position themselves as a good corporate citizen (You, 2009). This study shows that the intensity of the overall CSR communication of the U.S and Chinese Fortune 500 companies is at the same level given no statistical differences were found of the CSR process and stakeholder issues. Also, given the percentage of overall number top 50 companies reporting their CSR activities is convincing, and the percentage companies assigned to different CSR processes and stakeholder groups both in the U.S and in China. communication: How do Chinese companies communicate about their CSR activitie s? Do they adapt to Western standards or is there a distinctive Chinese version? What are the similarities and differences between the CSR principles and strategies presented by Chinese and global companies? (Bondy, Matten & Moon, 2004). Based on Dawkins a nd Ngunjiri (2012), studies comparing the CSR activities in well developed economies and emerging market economies demonstrated conflicting Australia implemented more CSR acti vities than Sri Lanka, but Shafer, Fukukawa, and and the Chinese managers perceive social responsibility. This study supports their study result
82 given that the similarities found in th e CSR processes and stakeholder issues reporting intensity. However, format and content differences were found regarding the U.S and companies begin to adopt interactive C SR reports to communicate their CSR activities on website, instead of using the traditional way of putting information on web pages. For example, Walmart While it is popular among top 50 U.S Fortune 500 companies to embed CSR reports as a crucial part of content and present those information on web pages, Chinese companies mainly used separate CSR reports as documents attached to the website to communicate their CSR activities. Also, unlike U.S companie s generally put CSR section on the website homepage; it takes more clicks and more time to search for CSR activities on Chinese the About Us section, report it with the content of Company Introduction or Corporate the benefits of using Internet to report CSR as part of the CSR communication. Because it takes more time and clicks for users to access the CSR information. Also, putting CSR reports as a large size of PDF document and just present it solely on the CSR section effective CSR communication with stakehold ers. Theoretical Implication This study showed a clear picture of the current status of the content and extent of U.S
83 o conduct CSR communication. This study contributes to theory building in public relations in at least three ways. First, its results add to ongoing research on CSR communication through website reporting by uncovering a previously overlooked part of CSR r eports. The total number of companies engaged in CSR reporting was impressive. It demonstrated that Fortune 500 companies have realized the benefits of corporate website and adopted its advantage by adding the interactivity feature, such as generating cust omer made CSR reports. The findings suggested that Fortune 500 companies have adopted Internet reporting to communicate CSR processes and stakeholder issues with diverse publics. This study also supported previous research of using stakeholder theory as th e common frame of reference when discussing CSR practice (Pederson, 2006). In CSR processes and stakeholder issues, this study contributed to the research body that use the same CSR communication measurement scale. It is also encouraged that other communication practices. onstruct as evidenced by the diverse terms used on websites to manage the CSR section proved that CSR was a multi facet concept. As a broad, complex and evolving concept, diverse CSR terms may further causing ineffective communication with stakeholders. Th us, this study suggested companies to consider CSR as an umbrella concept to encompass a
84 wide range of issues, but encourage them to reach an agreement on the general terms to manage the CSR section in order for stakeholders to acquire information easily. Second, this study provided empirical evidence of how and what CSR programs were conducted and reported through website reporting, hence, it was suggested that processes were most effective in reaching stakeholder groups and what CSR activities they appreciate the most. Based on Tang and Li (2009), companies communicate their CSR principles, activities and processes to different stakeholders to create a favorable public image a nd enhance corporate reputation, which may lead to more investment, more sales, and an increased bottom line. side of story about what CSR processes and stakeholder issues may produces awareness and generate busin ess outcomes. It is expected more studies would contribute to a better understanding of how and what CSR communication or CSR processes work, thus benefiting both theories and practitioners (Bhattacharya et al., 2008). Thus, this study contributes to the s takeholder theory by indicating that business should equip a wide r scope of societal issues and maintain a good relationship with diverse stakeholder groups instead of only support a specific stakeholder group, such as customers. Third, this study contribu ted to the existing CSR communication through website by including China into the scope. Although considerable research efforts have been undertaken to analyze CSR communication activities through corporate websites, few researches conducted an extensive c ontent analysis between countries. Existing studies either compared countries at the same economic level, such as between
85 developed countries U.S and European Fortune 500 companies (Maignan & Ralston, 2002), Germany and the UK companies ( Silberhorn & War ren, 2007); or between developing countries, seven Asian countries, BRIC countries ( Alon et al., 2010), China and India multinational companies (Lattemann et al., 2009). Despite there being studies that compare Malaysia, China, India and UK ( Adnana, Sta den, and Hay, 2009), the lack of attention to Chinese companies, and the language availability may limit scholars from acquiring the reality of CSR communication In addition, previous studies tend to focus either on CSR reports or information on corporat e websites. Few studies have done an extensive content analysis of both websites and CSR reports. Such ignorance of the above mentioned issues brings difficulties for scholars to gain a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of CSR communication. Thi s study is the first to put this conjecture by comparing the U.S and China Fortune 500 companies by a quantitative content analysis. Although at international rights issues, the result suggested that Chinese Fortune 500 companies have been largely involving in these stakeholder issues to improve their reputation. Chinese companies have adopted CSR activities and communicate with stakeholders to meet their needs and expectatio ns. Although differences were found on the different focus of CSR processes and stakeholder issues, similarities were also recorded that both driven principle over performance driven principle, then to va lue communication do not lag behind their U.S counterparts. This result indicated that a
86 stakeholder perspective may benefit the company from engaging in a multi stakeholder dialogue and perform better in CSR communication. Finally, this study also contributes to the research body that studying corporate CSR principle, CSR process, and stakeholder issue. And these categorizat ion and communication level. These CSR indicators are like signalers which are important for they c an be found on the web page. Practical Implication It is worth noting that among the top fifty Chinese Fortune 500 companies, the majority of them did not pay enough attention to their English websites. The CSR communication on their English version web site was very ineffective because not all of the CSR information on the original Chinese website were translated into English. Moreover, some companies only published CSR reports in Chinese and they were not translated into English. Therefore, considerable CSR processes and stakeholder issues on their Chinese version website were missing from the English version website, leading to a lower level of CSR communication intensity among international public relations studies. For example, China Railway Group only had its CSR reports on its corporate website to communicate CSR activities. Although the report was translated into English, the company only put it on the Chines e website, causing international scholars to gather
87 Some U.S Fortune 500 companies conduct website reporting by embedding CSR reports in the web pages. They are integrative and user friendly becaus e the time of from their U.S counterparts and fully embrace the advantages of using website r eporting as an important tool of CSR communication, either to provide more features, such as enable users to generate their own reporting by choosing the section they concerned about or to directly present all the CSR report information on web pages. As m entioned in the literature review, corporate websites undoubtedly become presentation tool. Based on the findings, out of 100 Fortune 500 companies, 94 of them covered issues related to CSR communication. But practitioners need more masterfu l skills to use it as a function for CSR communication. For most Chinese companies, CSR information are not put on a significant role, not on the homepage or without specific CSR section, or only CSR reports presented. According to Bondy and Moon (2004), i t is the assumption that every company with a CSR indicator, such as the CSR process should has at least a page devoted to it. Otherwise users would easily ignore the information. Based on Bondy and Moon (2004), some corporations used their Web sites as mo re than a tool for presenting a report or a policy on CSR philosophy or practices. Best practice of using website to conduct CSR communication is to not only provide volumes of information on what CSR activities they were involved in, how they were engagin g with stakeholders, but also the results of these activities and this is the part where Chinese companies lack of the most.
88 communication should try to appeal to as many s takeholders as possible given the context within which the firm operates. To understand the needs and wants of stakeholders and report them on websites and CSR reports will enable a two way communication. Management should balance the interest of all affec ted parties, those who fail to considerate the rights of employees or the health and safety issues of communication in the long run. Limitations and Future Research The first limitatio n of this study is that a relatively small size. Only fifty Fortune 500 companies from each country were analyzed. Given they are different in firm size and in different industries, they have certain focus when reporting CSR process or more likely to targe t on certain stakeholder groups which made the results less representative when The second limitation is that to CSR reporting on web pages and on reports is not necessarily a reflection of CSR practice. On one hand, CSR reporting may exaggerate CSR practice and performance, and on the other, it might underestimate the extent of the communication intensity (Wendy, Chapple & Moon, 2005). Therefore, the result of this study may not represent the true picture of com The third limitation is that the scope of this study. Since CSR is a broad, multi facet concept and there is no agreement on the definition when analyzing the content of the CSR processes and stakeholder issues, there is some overl ap between the categorization and it is difficult for one coder to make sure the CSR information fall into the right category, therefore causing confusion to the results.
89 These constraints may affect the generaliza tion and reliability of its results. Thus, regarding suggestions for future research, studies replicating this research between other countries are needed so that comparisons of results can be made, as well as to research (i.e., both qualitative and quantitative) exploring the reasons of why there are level comparison or industry level comparison is needed. In addition, since in the public relatio ns field, two way symmetrical communication is the best communication model we strive for. Thus, when public relations professional learn the merits of using interactive feature to report CSR activities, it is also important rience. Survey or focus groups aim to study the web The discussion thus far suggests that in the age of globalizatio n, CSR is beyond the concerns of individual companies or countries and is best understood in the tension and constant negotiation between the process of corporate globalization and the local social, cultural and economic contexts (Stohl, Stohl, & Townsley, 2007). Given the crucial role that communication plays in building CSR awareness and channels and strategies (e.g., promoting advertisements, publishing press releases, and poli shing website content, CSR reports) should continue be collected and analyz ed
90 APPENDIX A CSR MEASUREMENT CATE GORIZATION CATEGORIZATION OF CSR PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES AT CORPORATE WEB PAGES PRINCIPLES MOTIVATING CSR 1. Value driven CSR : CSR is presented as culture, or as an expression of its core values. time commitment with the same goals, strategies and accountabilities that drive any other part of our business. http://www.ge.com/ company/citizenship/ 2. Performance driven CSR economic mission, as an instrument to improve its financial performance and competitive posture. Example: China Resources, keeping in mind its social responsibilities, i s dedicated to promoting the mutual progress of the industry and society. http://www.crc.com.hk/eng/corporate/ 3. Stakeholder driven CSR : CSR is presented as a response to the pressures and scrutiny of one or more stakeholder groups. Example: MPC has long es tablished core values associated with health and safety, diversity and inclusion, environmental stewardship and honesty and integrity.http://www.marathonpetroleum.com/Corporate_Citizenship/ CSR PROCESSES 1. Philanthropy programs : The company presents a forma lized philanthropy program made of a clear mission and application procedure to allocate donations and grants. Example: GE Foundation contributed more than $115 million to community and educational programs. 2. Sponsorships : The company introduces sponsorship s as a type of responsibility initiative aimed at providing assistance either financial or in kind to a cause or charity. 3. Volunteerism : The company presents program that allow employees to work for a good cause during paid working hours. 4. Codes of ethics : The company discusses the content and/or implementation of a code of ethics or conduct. 5. Management of environmental impacts : The company discusses activities aimed at diminishing the negative impact of productive activities on the natural environment. Exa mple: GE continues long term GHG, energy and water use reduction
91 6. Quality programs : The company describes a formal product/service quality program as a form of responsibility initiat ive. Example: Our mission is to make Target the preferred shopping destination for our guests by delivering outstanding value, continuous innovation and an exceptional guest experience by consistently fulfilling our Expect More. Pay Less brand promise. 7. He alth and safety programs : The company introduces formal health and safety programs aimed at one or more stakeholder groups as a form of responsibility initiative. Example: Boeing will adopt a single, enterprise wide safety management system at its major ma nufacturing facilities that conforms to OHSAS 18001, an internationally recognized occupational health and safety management system standard. http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/safety_health.html STAKEHOLDER ISSUES 1. Community stakeholders (1) Arts and culture: Sup port of organizations, activities, actors, and objects linked to the arts or the national culture (2) Education: Support activities improving educational opportunities (3) Quality of life: Dedication to improving the quality of life and wellbeing of the communitie s (4) Safety: Concern for the safety of the persons in the communities surrounding its productive operations 2. Customer Stakeholders (1) Product/service Quality: Presents the achievement of high product/service quality as a part of its commitment to social responsib ility Example: Boeing will strive for continuous quality improvement in all that we do, so that we will rank among the world's premier industrial firms in customer, employee and community satisfaction. http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/culture/index.html (2)Safety : Displays concern for the safety of its customers in relations to its production activities or product/services 3. Employee Stakeholders (1) Equal opportunity : Commitment to giving the same chances in recruitment and promotion to all employees regardless of race, gender, age, or handicap (2) Health and safety: Concern for protecting the safety of employees
92 4. Shareholders : Commitment to the involvement of stakehold ers in corporate governance 5. Suppliers : Dedication to giving equal opportunities to suppliers in
93 APPENDIX B CODING GUIDE Terms to manage CSR section and CSR issues on corporate website :____ CSR: information directly referred to responsibilities and commitment of the company either to society or to specific stakeholder groups (Maignan & Ralston, 2002) 1=Corporate social responsibility 2=Corporate citizenship 3=Sustainbility 4=Cor porate Governance 5=Business and Society 6= Stakeholder management 7=corporate environmental management 8=Business Ethics 9= business & governance, 10=business & globalization 11= Community and development 12 corporate responsibility 13 =sustainable development 14=other 15= Social Responsibility PRINCIPLES MOTIVATING CSR ( Maignan & Ralston, 2002) 4. Value driven CSR as an expression of its core values. to citizenship is a full time commitment with the same goals, strategies and accountabilities that drive any other part of our business. http://www.ge.com/company/citizenship/ 5. Performance driven CSR miss ion, as an instrument to improve its financial performance and competitive posture. Example: China Resources, keeping in mind its social responsibilities, is dedicated to promoting the mutual progress of the industry and society. http://www.crc.com.hk/eng/ corporate / 6. Stakeholder driven CSR : CSR is presented as a response to the pressures and scrutiny of one or more stakeholder groups. Example: MPC has long established core values associated with health and safety, diversity and inclusion, environmental stew ardship and honesty and integrity.http://www.marathonpetroleum.com/Corporate_Citizenship/ CSR PROCESSES ( Maignan & Ralston, 2002) 8. Philanthropy programs : The company presents a formalized philanthropy program made of a clear mission and application proced ure to allocate donations and grants. Example: GE Foundation contributed more than $115 million to community and educational programs. 9. Sponsorships : The company introduces sponsorships as a type of responsibility initiative aimed at providing assistance ei ther financial or in kind to a cause or charity. 10. Volunteerism : The company presents program that allow employees to work for a good cause during paid working hours. 11. Codes of ethics : The company discusses the content and/or implementation of a code of ethi cs or conduct.
94 12. Management of environmental impacts : The company discusses activities aimed at diminishing the negative impact of productive activities on the natural environment. Example: GE continues long term GHG, energy and water use reduction trend by 13. Quality programs : The company describes a formal product/service quality program as a form of responsibility initiative. Example: Our mission is to make Target the preferred shopping destin ation for our guests by delivering outstanding value, continuous innovation and an exceptional guest experience by consistently fulfilling our Expect More. Pay Less brand promise. 14. Health and safety programs : The company introduces formal health and safety programs aimed at one or more stakeholder groups as a form of responsibility initiative. Example: Boeing will adopt a single, enterprise wide safety management system at its major manufacturing facilities that conforms to OHSAS 18001, an internationally r ecognized occupational health and safety management system standard. http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/safety_health.html STAKEHOLDER ISSUES ( Maignan & Ralston, 2002) 6. Community stakeholders (5) Arts and culture: Support of organizations, activities, actors, and objects linked to the arts or the national culture (6) Education: Support activities improving educational opportunities (7) Quality of life: Dedication to improving the quality of life and wellbeing of the communities (8) Safety: Concern for the safety of the person s in the communities surrounding its productive operations 7. Customer Stakeholders (2) Product/service Quality: Presents the achievement of high product/service quality as a part of its commitment to social responsibility Example: Boeing will strive for continuo us quality improvement in all that we do, so that we will rank among the world's premier industrial firms in customer, employee and community satisfaction. http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/culture/index.html (2)Safety : Displays concern for the safet y of its customers in relations to its production activities or product/services 8. Employee Stakeholders (3) Equal opportunity : Commitment to giving the same chances in recruitment and promotion to all employees regardless of race, ge nder, age, or handicap (4) Health and safety: Concern for protecting the safety of employees
95 9. Shareholders : Commitment to the involvement of stakeholders in corporate governance 10. Suppliers : Dedication to giving equal opportunities to suppliers in terms of gen
96 APPENDIX C CODING SHEET A. Coder: ___ 1=Mai 2= Ferguson B. Content type:____ 1=General information on the section of CSR 2=CSR reports on webpage C. Month: ____ D. Day: ____ E. Company ID: ____ F. Most frequent used terms to manage CSR section and encompass CSR issues on corporate website:____ 1=Corporate social responsibility 2=Corporate citizenship 3=Sustainbility 4=Corporate Governance 5=Business and Society 6= Stakeholder management 7=corpo rate environmental management 8=Business Ethics 9= business & governance, 10=business & globalization 11= Community and development 12 corporate responsibility 13=sustainable development 14=other 15= Social Responsibility G. Principles Motivating CSR ( Coding scheme adopted from Maignan Ralston 2002) 1. Value driven CSR: ____ Yes:1; No:0 2. Performance driven CSR: ____ Yes:1; No:0 3. Stakeholder driven CSR____ Yes:1; No:0 H. CSR Process on web pages and on CSR reports (0 means the item does not appear on w ebsites and reports, 1 refers to each item only appear on webpage or on reports, 2 means the item appear both on web pages and on separate CSR reports) 1. Philanthropy programs: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ 2. Sponsorships: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ 3. Volunteerism: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ 4. Codes of ethics: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ 5. Quality programs: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ 6. Health and safety programs: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ 7. Management of environmental impacts: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ I. Stakeholder issues on web pages and on CSR reports a. Community stakeholders Arts and culture: 0 ___, 1___ 2___
97 Education: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ Quality of life: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ Safety: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ b. Customer Stakeholders Product/service Quality: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ Safety : 0 ___, 1___ 2___ c. Employee Stakeholders Equa l opportunity: 0 ___, 1___ 2___ Health and safety: 0___, 1___ 2___ 4. Shareholders : 0 ___, 1___ 2___ 5. Suppliers : 0 ___, 1___ 2___
98 APPENDIX D CHINA FORTUNE 500 CO MPANY LIST Country Rank Company Global 500 rank City Revenues ($ millions) 1 Sinopec Group 5 Beijing 273,422 2 China National Petroleum 6 Beijing 240,192 3 State Grid 7 Beijing 226,294 4 Industrial & Commercial Bank of China 77 Beijing 80,501 5 China Mobile Communications 87 Beijing 76,673 6 China Ra ilway Group 95 Beijing 69,973 7 China Railway Construction 105 Beijing 67,414 8 China Construction Bank 108 Beijing 67,081 9 China Life Insurance 113 Beijing 64,635 10 Agricultural Bank of China 127 Beijing 60,536 11 Bank of China 132 Beijing 59,212 12 Noble Group 139 Hong Kong 56,696 13 Dongfeng Motor 145 Wuhan 55,748 14 China State Construction Engineering 147 Beijing 54,721 15 China Southern Power Grid 149 Guangzhou 54,449 16 Shanghai Automotive 151 Shanghai 54,257 17 China National Offshore Oil 162 Beijing 52,408 18 Sinochem Group 168 Beijing 49,537 19 China FAW Group 197 Changchun 43,4 34 20 China Communications Construction 211 Beijing 40,414 21 Baosteel Gr oup 212 Shanghai 40,327 22 CITIC Group 221 Beijing 38,985 23 China Telec ommunications 222 Beijing 38,469 24 China South 227 Beijing 37,996
99 Country Rank Company Global 500 rank City Revenues ($ millions) Industries Group 25 China Minmetals 229 Beijing 37,555 26 China North Industries Group 250 Beijing 35,629 27 China Huaneng Group 276 Beijing 33,681 28 HeBei Iron & Steel Group 279 Shijiazhuang 33,549 29 People's Insurance Co. of China 289 Beijing 32,579 30 Shenhua Group 293 Beijing 32,446 31 China Metallurgical Group 297 Beijing 32,076 32 Aviation Industry Corp. of China 311 Beijin g 31,006 33 Jardine Matheson 320 Hong Kong 30,053 34 Shougang Group 326 B eijing 29,181 35 Ping An Insurance 328 Shenzhen 28,927 36 Aluminum Corp. of China 331 Beijing 28,871 37 Wuhan Iron & Steel 341 Wuhan 28,170 38 Ch ina Post Group 343 Beijing 28,094 39 China Resources 346 Hong Kong 27,820 40 Huawei Technologies 352 Shenzhen 27,356 41 Sinosteel 354 Beijing 27,266 42 Hutchison Whampoa 362 Hong Kong 26,926 43 COFCO 366 Beijing 26,469 44 Jiangsu Shagang Group 367 Zhangjiagang 26,388 45 China United Network Communications 371 Shanghai 26,025 46 China Datang 375 Beijing 25,915 47 Bank of Communications 398 Shanghai 24,264 48 China Ocean Shipping 399 Beijing 24,250 49 China Guodian 405 Beijing 24,016 50 China Electronics 408 Beijing 23,761
100 APPENDIX E U.S FORTUNE 500 COMPANY LIST Country Rank Company Global 500 rank City Revenues ($ millions) 1 Wal Mart Stores 1 Bentonville 421,849 2 Exxon Mobil 3 Irving 354,674 3 Chevron 10 San Ramon 196,337 4 ConocoPhillips 12 Houston 184,966 5 Fannie Mae 15 Washington 153,825 6 General Electric 16 Fairfield 151,628 7 Berkshire Hathaway 19 Omaha 136,185 8 General Motors 20 Detroit 135,592 9 Bank of America Corp. 21 Charlotte 134,194 10 Ford Motor 25 Dearborn 128,954 11 Hewlett Packard 28 Palo Alto 126,033 12 AT&T 30 Dallas 124,629 13 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. 36 New York 115,475 14 McKesson 37 San Francisco 112,084 15 Citigroup 39 New York 111,055 16 Verizon Communications 41 New York 106,565 17 American International Group 44 New York 104,417 18 International Business Machines 52 Armonk 99,870 19 Cardinal Health 53 Dublin 98,602 20 Freddie Mac 54 McLean 98,368 21 CVS Caremark 57 Woonsocket 96,413 22 UnitedHealth Group 62 Minnetonka 94,155 23 Wells Fargo 63 San Francisco 93,249 24 Valero Energy 70 San Antonio 86,034 25 Kroger 76 Cincinnati 82,189 26 Procter & Gamble 80 Cincinnati 79,689 27 AmerisourceBergen 84 Chesterbrook 77,954 28 Costco Wholesale 85 Issaquah 77,946
101 Country Rank Company Global 500 rank City Revenues ($ millions) 29 Marathon Oil 99 Houston 68,413 30 Home Depot 101 Atlanta 67,997 31 Pfizer 103 New York 67,809 32 Walgreen 104 Deerfield 67,420 33 Target 106 Minneapolis 67,390 34 U.S. Postal Service 109 Washington 67,052 35 Medco Health Solutions 110 Franklin Lakes 65,968 36 Apple 111 Cupertino 65,225 37 Boeing 114 Chicago 64,306 38 State Farm Insurance Cos. 116 Bloomington 63,177 39 Microsoft 120 Redmond 62,484 40 Archer Daniels Midland 122 Decatur 61,682 41 Johnson & Johnson 123 New Brunswick 61,587 42 Dell 124 Round Rock 61,494 43 WellPoint 135 Indianapolis 58,802 44 PepsiCo 137 Purchase 57,838 45 United Technologies 150 Hartford 54,326 46 Dow Chemical 152 Midland 53,674 47 MetLife 160 New York 52,717 48 Best Buy 165 Richfield 50,272 49 United Parcel Service 166 Atlanta 49,545 50 Kraft Foods 167 Northfield 49,542
102 LIST OF REFERENCES Ag uil era, R. V. & Jackson, G. (2003). National Diversity of Corporate Academy of Management Review 28(3), 447 465. Aguilera, R. V., Williams, J. M. Conley & Rupp, D. E. (2006) and Corporate Governance: An International Review 14(3), 147 158. Baskin, J. ( 2006 ) Value, values, and sustainability: Corporate responsibility in emerging market companies. Working Paper, Cambridge Program for Industry, Cambridge. Baughn, C., Bodie, N., & McIntosh, J. ( 2007 ) Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14, 189 205. Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. ( 2004 ) The adoption of voluntary codes of conduct in MNCs: A three country comparative study. Business and Society Review 109 449 477. Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. ( 2008 ) Multinational corporation code s of conduct: Governance tools for corporate social responsibility ? Corporate Governance: An International Review 16:294 311. Braithewaite, J., & Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, K. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: Perceptions of Indian business. London: Centre for Social Markets. Burton, B. K., Farh, J. L., & Hegarty, W. H. (2000). A cross cultural comparison of corporate social responsibility orientation: Hong Kong vs. United Stat es Students. Teaching Business Ethics 4(2), 151 167. Capriotti, P., & Moreno, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and public relations: The importance and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites. Public Relations Review 33, 84 9 1. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance, Academy of Management Review 4(4), pp. 497 505. Carroll, A. B (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility Toward the Moral Management of Organizatio nal Stakeholders. Business Horizons 34(4), 39 48. Carroll, A. B..(1998). The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship. Business and Society Review 100, 1 7.
103 Crane, A. & Matten, D. (2005). Business Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Chapple, W. & Moon. J. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia : A Seven Country Study of CSR Web Site Reporting. Business Society 44(1) 415 Clarkson, M, E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of M anagement Review 20(1), 92 117. Dawkins, J. (2004). Corporate Responsibility: The Communication Challenge. Journal of Communication Management 9(2), 108 119. Epstein, M. (2008). Making sustainability work best practices in managing and measuring corpora te social, environmental and economic impacts Sheffield, UK San Francisco: Greenleaf Pub. Berrett Koehler Publishers. Enginkaya,O. & Ozarslan. (2009). A Theoretical framework about how organizations promote their corporate social responsibility initiativ es. Esrock, S & Leichty,G (1999). Corporate World Wide Web pages: Serving the News media and other publics. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 76(1), 456 467. Esrock. S & Leichty. G(2000). Organization of corporate web pages: Publics and funct ions. Public Relations Review 26(3), 327 342. Fukukawa, K., & Moon, J. (2004). A Japanese model of corporate social responsibility: A study of website reporting. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 16, 45 59. Gerson, B. (2007). CSR best practices: Comp anies that want to improve their corporate social responsibility programs in China may learn from the experiences of others. China Business Review, 20 25. Godfrey, P. C., & Hatch, N.W. (2007). Researching corporate social responsibility: An agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1), 87 98. Golob, U. & Bartlett, J. (2007). Communicating about corporate social responsibility: A comparative study of CSR reporting in Australia and Slovenia. Public Relations Review 33(1), 1 9. Grayson D & Hodges A. (2004). Corporate social opportunity: 7 steps to make corporate so cial responsibility work for your business. Sheffield: Greenleaf. 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. Heath. R., & Ni.L. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from: http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/corporate social responsibility/ ).
104 H older Webb, L., Cohen, J., Nath, L., & Wood, D.(2009). The supply of Corporate Social Responsibility disclosures among U.S firms. Journal of Business Ethics. 84: 497 527 Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Readi ng, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27(1), 55 68. Hu, J. (2007). Report to the Seventeenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China. Hunter, T. & Bansal, P. (2007). How Standard is Standardized MNC Global Environmental Communication? Journal of Business Ethics 71(1), 135 147. Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Li S., & Schneider (2009). CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4):426 442. Li, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility : Definition, scope, and characteristics. Curre nt Philosophy, 4, 41 46. Li, Z. (2005). Lack of corporate social responsibility behind recent China accidents. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3859 Lombard, M., Snyder Duc h, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication : Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587 609. Kemp, M. (2001). Corporate social responsibility in Indonesia: Quixotic dream or conf ident expectation?Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment 12:279 291. Kolk, A. (2005). Forthcomi ng, Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Business Strategy and the Environment 32(5). KPMG. (2005). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2005. Amsterdam, the N etherlands: KPMG Global Sustainability Services. Maignan, I. & Ralston, D.(2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3),pp. 497 514.
105 Matten, D ., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1 2), 109 120. Mattern, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166 179. Mayasari, L. ( 2009). Communicating corporate social responsibility activities to public: The study of website publication of Indonesians McIntosh, M.,Waddock, S., & Kell, G. (Eds.). (2004). Learning to talk: Corporate citizenship and the development of the UN global compact. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. McMillan, S. J. (2000), The Microscope and the Moving Target: The Challenge of Applying Content Analysis to the World Wide Web, Journalism and Mass Communicatio n Quarterly 77(1), 80 98. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26, 117 127. Mohan, A. (2001). Corporate citizenship: Perspectives from India. Journal of Corp orate Citizenship ,2, 107 117. Moon, J. (2002). Corporate social responsibility: An overview. In International directory of corporate philanthropy (pp. 3 14). London: Europa. Moon, J. (2003). Socializing business? Government and Opposition 38(3), 265 273 Moon, J. (2004). Government as a driver of corporate social responsibility: The UK in comparative perspective [International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility Research Paper No. 20]. Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Business School. Moon, J., & Sochacki, R. (1995). The social responsibility of business in job and enterprise creation. Crawley, Australia: Department of Political Science, University of Western Australia. Perelmutter. Morsing, M., Midttun, A., & Palmas, K. (2007). Corporate s ocial responsibility in Scandinavia: A turn toward the business case? In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility 87 104. New York: Oxford University Press. Nikolaeva, R. & Bicho, M. (2011). The role of instit utional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 139 157
106 O'Connor, M., & Spangenberg J.(2008). A methodology for CSR reporting: assuring a represen tative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and performance issues Journal of Cleaner Production 16(13) 1399 1415 stakeholders define corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review 34, 343 350. P ederson E. R. (2006), Making Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Operable: How Companies Translate Stakeholder Dialogue into Practice. Business and Society Review 111: 137 163. Podnar, K., & Janc ic, Z. (2006). Towards a Categorization of Stakeholder Groups: An Empirical Verification of a Three Level Model. Journal of Marketing Communications 12(4), 297 308. Reynolds, S., Schultz, F., & Hekman, D. (2006). Stakeholder Theory and Managerial Decisio n Making: Constraints and Implications of Balancing Stakeholder Interests. Journal of Business Ethics 64(3), 285 301. Sen, S. & C.B. Bhattacharya. (2001). Do es Doing Good Always Lead to Do ing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corpor ate Social Responsibility. Jour nal of Marketing Research 38(1), 225 243. Shi, S. & Weisert, D. Corporate governance with Chinese characteristics. The China Business Review 29(5). 40 44. SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management). ( 2007 ) 2007 corporate social responsibility: United States, Australia, India, China, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil: A pilot study. Virginia: SHRM. Siegel, D. S., & Vitaliano, D. F. (2007). An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 16(3), 773 792. Signitzer, B., & Prexl, A. (2008). Corp orate sustainability communication: Aspects of theory and professionalization. Journal of Public Relations Research 20(1), 1 19. Simmons, C. J., & Becker Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketin g 4(70), 154 169. Siegel, D. S., & Vitaliano, D. F. (2007). An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 16(3), 773 792. Signitzer, B., & Prexl, A. (2008). Corporate sustaina bility communication: Aspects of theory and professionalization. Journal of Public Relations Research 20(1), 1 19.
107 Simmons, C. J., & Becker Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing 4(70), 154 169. Journal of Business Ethics 48(2), 175 187. Sriramesh, K., Ng, C. W., Soh, T. T., & Luo, W. (2007). Corporat e social responsibility and public relations: Perceptions and practices in Singapore. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 119 134). New York: Oxford University Press. Swanson, Diane L. (1995). Addr essing a Theoretical Problem by Reorienting the Corporate Social Performance Model. Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 43 64. Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report Corporate Social Responsibility differently? An investigati on through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal Of Marketing Communications 14(2), 113 124. Wanderly, L,S, & Lucian, R., & Farache, F.& Filho, J,M. (2008).CSR Information Disclosure on the Web: A Context Based Approach Analysing the Influence of Coun try of Origin and Industry. Journal of Business Ethics 82. 369 378. Welford, R.J. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia: 2004 Survey Results. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 17. Wieland, J. (2005). Corpor ate governance, values management, and standards: A European perspective. Business and Society 44, 174 193. Academy of Man a gement Review 16, 691 718.
108 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mai Shi c ompleted her Master of Arts in Mass C ommunication with a specialty in public relations from the University of Florida in 201 2 During her graduate studies, she focused on corporate social responsibility, social media and crisis communication After graduation, she wil l continue chase her dream in becoming a prestigious public relations professional in a multinational Fortune 500 company, r e sponsible for CSR communication.