CORPORATE ABILITY OR CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: TWITTER ENGAGEMENT By QIANYAN JIANG A 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 COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017
2 2017 Qianyan Jiang
3 To my Mom, Hui Qiu, my Dad, Yong Jiang
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my committee, my family, my friends, and all those who have helped me during the writing of this thesis, which could not have been finished without their support. My deepest gratitude goes first and foremost to Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, my advisor since I entered graduate school and also my committee chair, for her great patience and guidance. She always had my back, even in the worst situations. Without her dedication and inspiration, I would never have made it to this stage of both my academic path and my personal life. Moreover, I would like to thank Dr. Linjuan Rita Men and Dr. Churchill L. Roberts III. Dr. Men shared with me her profound t heoretical knowledge, lifting my work to a higher level. And w ithout the valuable guidance of Dr. Roberts, I would never have realized how interesting this work, and the world of communications, could be. Again, my deepest appreciation to all my committee members for the help they have given me so generously. I would like to thank my family and friends as well. They always know how to calm me down offering me support and love and never asking anything in return I could not have done all this without their love and support.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 A B S T R A C T ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ........................... 16 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ................................ ................................ ... 16 Overview of CSR ................................ ................................ .............................. 16 Why is CSR Emphasized? ................................ ................................ ............... 17 Drivers of CSR ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 How Corporations Practice CSR? ................................ ................................ .... 20 Barriers to Implementing CSR ................................ ................................ .......... 20 Communication Strategy ................................ ................................ ......................... 21 Brief Introduction of Strategy ................................ ................................ ............ 21 Brief Introduction of Communication Strategy ................................ .................. 23 Corporate Ability (CA) ................................ ................................ ............................. 26 Corporate Associations ................................ ................................ .................... 26 Brief Introduction of Corporate Ability ................................ ............................... 27 Distinguishing CA and CSR ................................ ................................ .............. 28 Stakeholder Engagement and Social Media ................................ ........................... 29 Stakeholder Engagement ................................ ................................ ................. 29 Social Media and Social Network ing Communication Strategies ..................... 30 Interactive Tactics on Social Media ................................ ................................ .. 33 T he Research Questions ................................ ................................ ........................ 34 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 38 Selecting Cases ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 38 Selecting Tweets ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 39 Content Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 40 Existence of CSR Related Content ................................ ................................ ......... 40 CSR Related Content ................................ ................................ ....................... 41 Corporate Ability Related Content ................................ ................................ .... 41 Twitter Tactics and Stakeholder Engagement ................................ .................. 42 Coding Sheet Construction ................................ ................................ ............... 43
6 4 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 50 ter ................ 51 Comparison Between the Corporation Groups ................................ ....................... 52 Comparison Within the Corporation Groups ................................ ........................... 55 Hybrid Strategy ................................ ................................ ................. 57 Results of Different Communication Strategies on Stakeholder Engagement ........ 58 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ......... 70 ................................ .......... 71 Sta keholder Engagement for Different Communications Strategies ....................... 72 APPENDIX CODING SHEET ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 75 REFERENCE LIST ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 77 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 84
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Classification of the corporations and their Twitter accounts. ................................ 44 3 2 General information of the selected accounts. ................................ ....................... 46 3 3 CSR related tweets categories. ................................ ................................ .............. 47 3 4 CA related tweets categories. ................................ ................................ ................ 49 3 5 Explanation of Twitter tactics. ................................ ................................ ................. 49 3 6 Explanation of Twitter interactions element s. ................................ ......................... 49 4 1 The percentage of CSR related and CA related tweets in selected tweets. ........... 62 4 2 The percentage of CSR related and CA related tweets in top ranking and bottom ................................ ................................ ... 64 4 3 ....................... 65 4 4 .......................... 66 4 5 The corporations that utilized the hybrid strategy. ................................ .................. 67 4 6 Stakeholder engagement from total selected tweets. ................................ ............. 68 4 7 Z value s and p value s of stakeholder engagement from total selected tweets. ..... 68 4 8 Stakeholder engagement from top related tweets. ...... 68 4 9 Z value s and p value s of stakeholder engagement from top ranked related tweets. ................................ ................................ ......... 68 4 10 Stakeholder engagement from top related tweets. ........ 68 4 11 Z value s and p values of stakeholder engagement from top ranked related tweets. ................................ ................................ ............ 68 4 12 Stakeholder engagement from bottom related tweets. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 69 4 13 Z value s and p value s of stakehol der engagement from bottom ranked related tweets. ................................ ................................ ......... 69 4 14 Stakeholder engagement from bottom related tweets. .. 69
8 4 15 Z value s and p value s of stakeholder engageme nt from bottom ranked related tweets. ................................ ................................ ............ 69
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 The percentage of CSR related and CA related t weets in top ranking and bottom ................................ ................................ ... 64 4 2 ....................... 65 4 3 .......................... 66
10 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 Communication CORPORATE ABILITY OR CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: TWITTER ENGAGEMENT By Qianyan Jiang December 2017 Chair: Mary Ann Ferguson Major: Mass Communication Recently, corporations have increasingly used social media, such as Twitter, as an effective tool to communicate and build relationship s with stakeholders. Social media generally, and Twitter in particular, is becoming a popular option for communication Moreover, it has become necessary for those corporatio ns to promote corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate ability (CA) via social media. Therefore, it is important for both practitioners and scholars to understand how online CSR and CA communication strategies can be utilized on Twitter. In addi tion, it is well worth exploring how corporations with different revenues utilize different communication strategies and how effective those strategies are. In this study, 42 Twitter accounts managed by 42 companies were examined. The companies were sel ected from the Fortune 1000 list from 2015 and include the 21 top ranked companies in each industry and the 21 bottom ranked companies in each industry. The chosen analytical methodologies allowed the researcher to compare the communications strategies use
11 of attention to CSR and CA communications. This study found that the top ranked corporations were more likely than the bottom ranked corporations to conduct CSR communication. However, when it came to CA communication, the bottom ranked corporations put in more effort than the top ranked ones. As to the tactics provided by Twitter, the top ranked corporations often used hashtags in their CSR communications, whereas the bottom ranked corporations pref erred to use hyperlinks. All the sampled corporations have, to a large extent, engaged in CSR and CA communication via Twitter. However, the stockholder engagement this communication produced differed across corporations as well as across the strategies us ed. In other words, whether the communication had a desirable effect on stakeholders depended on the type of corporation and the chosen strategies (CSR or CA). For the top ranked corporations, CSR related tweets generated more interactions. However, the lo west ranked corporations benefited more from CA related tweets.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Social media are well known for their effectiveness to reinforce social interactions and bring social communications into a virtual world. This progress is stepping for ward with a social media revolution changing every corner of life. Nowadays, for example, each among the 1.59 billion Facebook users is connected to every other person by an average of three a nd a half other people (Edunov et al. 2016). Social media is referred based and mobile technologies to turn communication into an wide variety of strategies rums, weblogs, social blogs, microblogging, wikis, podcasts, photographs or pictures, video, rating and social Companies have grasped opportunities presented by social media to intensify their communication with their med ia platforms (Bernoff & Li, 20 11 ). Due to enhancement of social interactions and communications, social media marketin g has expanded in recent yea rs. According to surveys in the social media marketing industry, 94 % of business professionals who are using social m edia for marketing purposes admit the benefits of social media in generat ing more business exposure. In additio n 83 % of professionals said that social media was important to their businesses (Stelzner, 2012). This means that many companies are aware of the importance of social media. Based on the im portance of social media in marketing, it is not hard to image tha t how to make use of various tools in the most effective and efficient ways is becoming important to corporations
13 In 2012, Twitter was the third most commonly used social media tool, following behind YouTube and Facebook (Stelzner, 2012). Founded in 2006 as a free micro blogging service it enables users to input 140 characters of text called a tweet. From n.d. ). This large number of Twitter users provides a platform for individuals or organizations to reach out to many people. In 2013, 77 % of Fortune 500 enterprises possessed active Twitter accounts, playing an important role among all other social media platforms (Slegg, 2013). This means that the majority of enterpr ises, especially the large ones, have started to use Twitter as an important tool for marketing purposes. There are three different kinds of communication strategies currently used in studies by scholars: corporate ability (CA) strategy, corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy and hybrid strategy (Kim & Rader, 2010). CA strategy attempts to create a cognitive association with customers regarding its expertise in terms of its product and service qua lity (Kim, Kim & Sung, 2014). CSR strategy refers to the objective of building associations related to social and environmental effort s (Kim & Rader, 2010). Last, but not least, hybrid strategy is identified as when CA strategy and CSR strategy co exist Presently, it is a trend for corporations to put more effort on public relations, and as discussed before, it is inevitable to integrate this effort into the prevailing trend of social media market ing because social media plays an increasingly important role in public relations. Particularly in recent decades, businesses are growing aware of sustainability and CSR. Contemporary businesses are under dual pressure to maximize profits as well as being socially responsible sources (Campbell, 2007).
14 However, little is known regarding how corporations use social media platforms to cultivate public relations by communicating information about CSR practices. Though researchers have studied usage of some social media tools such as Facebook or websites in public r elations (Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009; Kim et al., 2014), few are specific to the us e of Twitter. For example, it is not clear whether contemporary business has initiated social media platforms such as Twitter, to highlight their CSR policies and practices nor how companies leverage features of Twitter to realize their CA goals. engagement efforts on CSR related issues are not great or diverse (Kim et al., 2014). Since corporations have become more open to the public and customer by using social media tools like Twitter, it is impor tant to ask : whether corporations prioritize common is for T witter. Meanwhile, since different companies give different consideration to different stakeholders, would the top ranked corporates versus the bottom ranked corporates in Fortune 1000 list be different on how th To answer the questions above, this study asks and answers the following three questions: 1). What are the most frequent communication content stra tegies corporations are using: CSR, CA or hybrid strategies? 2). What interactive strategies are found in these corporate tweets? content strategies in terms of corporate ability and corporate social responsibility. The goal is to make comparatives on important variables such as size, reputation, industry, etc. In this
15 way, new insights can be acquired about how enterprises use social media to communicate CSR and CA information with Twitter users. Understanding how current content commun ication strategies and engagement strategies about CSR and C A practices are ado pted, should allow other enterprises to make improvements in the usage of the suitable strategy Furthermore, this study contributes to understanding the needs of different Twit depth insight into how companies use social media tools to interact with stakeholders. From a practical perspective, these findings will also provide valuable information for academics and practitioners about the current strategy.
16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Corporate Social R esponsibility (CSR) Overview of CSR Corp orate social responsibility programming, usually falling under the public relations function due to its direct relation to reputation and corpor ate identity. Although there is no speci fic regulation mandating CSR in most countries, publics and stakeholders have the expectation that corporations will give back to soci ety to some extent. In general, CSR refers to transparent business strategies that are based on ethical values and go beyond compliance with legal requirements to show respect for people, community, and the environment (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009). Many othe r labels have become associated with CSR, such as corporate citizenship, social responsibility, strategic philanthropy, etc. (Rangan, Chase, & Karim, 2012). The basic idea behind all these terms is that a corporation should contribute to creating shared va lue for a wider responsibilities extend beyond the world of commerce to the entire society. A particularly prominent form of CSR today is sustainable development, w hich is premised on business practices that are more environmentally friendly and thus build value for society by helping to preserve the ecological systems on which it depends (Tebo, 2005). emphasizing businesses are increasingly expected to initiate and maintain relationships with publics as a matter of course, this also presents new opportunities to maximize p rofits.
17 Basically, corporations, by looking at their own good as intertwined with that of society, can create a win win situation. Why is CSR E mphasized ? the maximization of wealth for the benefit of its stockholders alone (Selsky & Parker, 2005). Fulfilling this financial responsibility is the baseline for businesses. Howeve r, the primacy of this imperative has been challenged since the 1990s, when economic development was definitively shown to cause damage to the environment and society (Bendell, 2005). Though a small number of people in the uppermost class achieved great we alth, the majority of the population, as well as nature, were suffering. In the 21st century, more and more importance has been attached to CSR, the concept of which has been extended from the purely financial to include social and environmental aspects as well (Campbell, 2007). This complex of concerns is often described as the environmental performance (Elkington, 1994). Increasingly, CSR is linked with stakeholder value, which means that corporations need to create value not only for investors but for other stakeholders, including employees, clients or customers, partners, suppliers, distributors, the government, l ocal communities, etc. (Rangan et al. 2012). When taking the whole group of stakeholders into consideration, corporations are likelier to behave responsibly toward the entire society, for instance taking the initiative to stop harming the environment and to develop ecologically sound practices. This idea of stak eholder value is closely aligned with the utilitarian perspective, which states that it is morally right to pursue the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Aras & Crowther, 2008) and
18 would thus advocate that civil society require corporations to be subject to a social contract that includes all stakeholders. Furthermore, social responsibility should take into account even future members of the society (Boutilier, 2007). Drivers of CSR Corporations may be compelled to undertake CSR practices for a var iety of reasons, which can be categorized as either internal or external driving forces. As regards external forces, corporations that enact CSR tend to be driven less by government pressure than by other stakeho lders in the society. Graafland (2006) sugg goods for citizens is shrinking. In some countries, particularly the emerging markets, governments are unwilling to make such regulations for the sake of economic growth. Howe ver, in many countries, corporations are influenced by a cultural tradition of philanthropy, business ethics, and community embeddedness (Fischer, 2004), a tradition in accord with utilitarian philosophy, which has gradually spread across the globe. Anothe r driving force is the trend for corporations to take the initiative in responding to social and environment crises closely related to their own industries ( Ghasemi & Nejati 2013). This trend not only makes it more difficult, in terms of public relations, for corporations to abstain from CSR, but also influences the expectations of stakeholders, who then apply additional pressure to corporations to be socially responsible. As for internal forces, adopting CSR has been found to benefit corporations in many ways. For instance, CSR codes have gradually been adopted as international standards, indicating that corporations need to conform to these standards when operating as a gl obal player (Visser, 2008). This is particularly true for large enterprises
19 entering overseas markets, where they need to focus on brand reputation. Since CSR practices emphasize stakeholder values, these practices can motivate activism on the part of stakeholders and make them more engaged in business activities (Bendixen & Abratt, 2007). In this way, CSR contributes to cor strengthens relationships with customers, suppliers, partners, etc. Many businesses claim that promotion of their CSR practices boosts their profile with the public and hence increases customer interest in their company (Bendixen & Abratt, 2007). This effect can be demonstrated by the many enterprises, large and small, that utilize CSR to earn affection from customers and thus enhance their brand image as well as customer loyalty (Ghasemi & Nejati, 2013). As customers bec ome more concerned about environmental and social issues, enterprises that promote themselves as working on promote CSR as their distinctive strategy for entering a competitiv e market (Barnett & Salomon, 2012). Thus, more and more businesses find that CSR can enhance their financial performance. However, the relationship between the very straightforward. On the one hand, social performance may raise the level of demand for a company and lower its price sensitivity to advertise the company (Dorfman & Steiner, 1954; Navarro, 1988; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). On the other hand, increasing direct costs are often required when making progress for social responsibility (Brammer & Millington 2008), and this cost increase may prevent corporate from improving products themselves. Therefore, corporate s with both high and low CSR initiative have better financial performance than other corpo rates
20 Specifically, companies that do not value CSR would have best financial performance in the short run and companies that highly value CSR would have best financial performance in the long run ( Brammer & Millington 2008) How Corporations Practice CSR ? CSR activities: sustainability, accountability, and transparency (Carroll, 1979). exam ple, natural resources such as coal, oil, or ore that are consumed in the present will not be available in the future. Therefore, sustainability would demand that a society carefully plan the use of resources that cannot quickly be regenerated. Next, accou ntability means that corporations should recognize their effects on the external environment and take the initiative to bear responsibility (Sweeney & Coughlan, 2008). This principle is foundational to CSR, which is premised on corporations voluntarily tak ing responsibility in society rather than being compelled to do so. Lastly, transparency is particularly important to external stakeholders, who should be well the contempo rary business world, companies often use diverse reporting mechanisms to communicate about CSR with stakeholders, including, for instance, social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter (Werther Jr & Chandler 2005 ). It can be assumed that corporations ca n deliver their CSR information more transparently via multiple channels, since the varied features of each channel can be utilized. Barriers to Implementing CSR Though implementing CSR is considered more and more important in business, scholar and practi tioners have also written about the barriers and challenge s that
21 corporations face in this area. For instance, corporations that expect a CSR strategy to improve their brand reputation might misspend resources if the strategy is poorly implemented (Zwetslo ot, 2003). This means that there is no guarantee that especially applicable to small or medium sized enterprises with limited resources. Shen, Govindan, and Shankar (2015) identi fy several core obstacles in CSR implementation, including organizational governance, customer issues, community involvement, and development, all of which influence or are influenced by stakeholder ally, Sweeney and Coughlan (2008) suggest that customers may show awareness of the issue of environmental protection without such awareness mattering much in their actual purchasing decisions. Furthermore, Boutilier (2007) notes that customers show little willingness to pay premium prices for socially responsible products. These findings illustrate that for effect of increased profits. Communication Strategy Brief Introduction o f Strategy Strateg goals, and programs (Dess Gregory dynamic business environment. With explicit objectives and plans that are carefully thoug ht out, businesses can perform better and in a more targeted fashion, especially given the complexity of business activities and organizational structures, which require ever greater capacities for creating and managing strategies (Porter, 1996). In other
22 words, changes to business environments place pressure on firms to use strategies in order to adapt. However, some scholars have also criticized strategy One problem is that the very concept of strategy is always in flux, sometimes rendering it hard to grasp ( Mainardes, Ferreira & Raposo 2014). Furthermore, strategy is sometimes said to Mintzberg & Quinn 19 88 ), since strategy proposes firm objectives and plans. Although strategy is generally considere d needs to remain flexible when adopting strategies, since it is often necessary to adjust and modify strategies according to changes in the business environment. Critic isms aside, strategies have been widely applied and integrated into almost every aspect of business operations and management, at every level. Previous l iterature proposes three levels of strategy c orporate level strategy b usiness level strategy and f unctional level strategy (Salimian, Khalili, Nazemi, & Alborzi, 2012) To be more specific, c orporate level strategy represents a with managing multiple businesses and product lines so as to achieve stability, growth, an d retrenchment for the organization as a whole Business level strategy f ocuses on And f unctional level strategy f ocuses on one functional area within a business unit to achieve corpora te and business unit objectives by fully utilizing various resources. The success of a functional strategy contribute s Thus, strategy management may penetrate almost every area and every level within an organization, each lowe r level strategy supporting the effectiveness and
23 efficiency of the next level up and so assisting firms in achieving their goals. At each level, different kinds of employees or managers are involved. The overall corporate strategy involves the corporate l evel managers such as the CEO and board of directors, while the business level strategy depends on general managers, and functional strategies focusing on individual areas such as research and development, manufacturing, marketing, human resource s etc., r equire the involvement of managers in a business unit or division. Operating strategies for regions and districts, plants, departments, etc., need the cooperation of lower level supervisors (Kibicho, 2015). Of course, in addition to the involvement of lead ers and managers, all these strategies call for the collaboration and participation of all relevant employees in order to meet or exceed the intended goals. Brief Introduction of Communication Strategy Since strategy enables firms to adapt to changing busi ness environments better, it has become increasingly important for firms to strategize their organizational communication as information and communication technologies have evolved dramatically. To stay competitive, firms need objectives and plans to guide operations and management so as to handle increasingly complex situations. Communicating strategically is also of great importance as organizations expand in scale and scope, which makes it increasingly difficult for customers to easily understand and int eract with them (Lurati & Eppler, 2006). In response, the content of corporate communication has become more specific and detailed in order to target specific customers, a necessary part of building relationships ( Hallahan, Holtzhausen, Van Ruler 2007). For instance, corporations may now prepare a financial statement for investors and a sustainability report for the general public.
24 Increasingly important in contemporary business is the concept of corporate communication. Acc ording to Grunig (1992), corporate communication is the management function related to public relations. However, Argenti and Forman (2002 ) write that, when used in connection to public relations, corporate communication mainly ternal communication and is emphasized by a compan y because of the belief that it depends on how it is viewed by key stakeholders such as customers and investors. This emphasis has been challenged by Hallahan, ( 2007). They state that companies need to construct and maintain beneficial relationships, with both external stakeholders and internal stakeholders such as employees and suppliers. This demonstrates the trend to take account of all stakeholders in corporat e management, which is one reason for the appeal of CSR. In line with this view, Johan and Noor (2013) explain corporate communication as a framework for effective coordination of both internal and external communication with the purpose of constructing an d maintaining favorable relationships with stakeholders who include employees, clients, suppliers, local communities, and more. Every organization needs to communicate with its various stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, etc., so they al so need strategies about how to best deliver information to these stakeholders, strategies that have gone by different names. to communicating so as to advance their org anizational mission (Argenti, Howell, & Beck, 2005) and consists in policy making and guidance that allows organizations to
25 conduct information activities consistently within the organization or across organizations ( Kitchen & Burgmann, 2015 ). term, systematic planning and realization of information flow, communication, media development, and image care (Grigorescu & Lupu, 2015). This definition differs in emphasis but is ge nerally consistent with the definition of strategic communication. The concept of communication management has emerged and converged across disciplines (Hallahan et al 2007), and strategic communication is seen to be inherently multidisciplinary, given t he involvement of fields such as public relations, marketing, advertising, and management ( Zerfa & Huck, 2007 ). This makes sense because the fundamental task of communication strategy is to promote understanding of an oals and to supply information desired for day to day operations, which encompasses such different areas as customer and supplier management as well as staff training (Hallahan et al 2007). Other scholars have pointed out that strategic communication invo brand, motivation of its people to complete specific tasks, and even the advocacy of particular legislation ( Kitchen & Burgmann, 2015 ). Thus, it can be seen that communication strategies can be included in a wide sco pe of business activities in different departments and so strategic communication must involve the entire organization as a whole. In fact, the core of communication strategy is achieving organizational goals by coordinating communications among all parts of an organization.
26 More specifically, Knudsen and Lemmergaard (2014 ) found that being strategic means the organization should communicate the best message in the most appropriate channels and measure performance against carefully considered organizational and communication goals. Fu r thermore, they wrote that communication management is a process of creation, which should take a balanced consideration of three element s: message, media channels, and audiences. The intended message, of course, w ill be operations, and the audiences are intended recipients of information both internal and external to the organization. Corporate A bility (CA) Corporate Associations Corporate association s reflect the total information that a customer has about a company, based on which the customer forms his or her images of the company (Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006). Thus, corporate association is critical because it influences how and behaviors ( Prez, del Mar Garca de los Salmones, & Rodrguez del Bosque 2013). In fact, as an overall or comprehensive response, attitude, or opinion on the part of a customer toward a brand, corporate association will determine not only whether customers repeatedly consume a product or service but also whether they will help or harm the brand through word of s corporate associations reflect multiple corporate outcomes, including reputation, brand image, c orporations (Chang & Rizal, 2011). Clearly, firms want to develop favorable corporate term brand
27 growth. Corporate associations grow from two main s ources: corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate ability (CA) (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Chang & Rizal, 2011). C orporate social responsibility associations (CSR association) refer to consumer society while c orporate ability associations (CA association) are on the basis of consumer's view of a company's expertise in its product and service quality on the market (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Madrigal, 2000). CSR has been discussed above at length, and an introduction to corporate ability is presented below. Brief I ntroduction of C orporate Ability differences in which are evaluated by customers. More specifically, when firms fo cus on their CA positioning strategy, they need to develop the expertise of employees, improve internal research and development, and strive for technological innovation, manufacturing expertise, customer orientation, and industry leadership (Berens, van R iel, & van Bruggen, 2005). Since customers may acquire CA associations not only from prior experiences with a firm but also from word of mouth communication and media reports (Berens et al., 2005), firms need to attach importance not only to satisfying cus tomers, but also to WOM effect and media promotion in order to generate positive CA associations among customers. As with previous kinds of strategy, CA strategies should ideally be systematic and complex
28 enough to involve almost all employees and all busi ness activities within an organization. Distinguishing CA and CSR Since corporate associations in this model result primarily from CSR and CA (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Cornelius, Todres, Janjuha Jivraj, Woods, & Wallace 2008), both will clearly have a great i mpact on a corporate The importance of CA and CSR is underlined by the fact that the social performance and organizational effectiveness of a company are two major indicators looked at by firms seek to establish a good reputation (Marin & R uiz, 2007). It is important firms understand the different roles of CA and CSR so as to select appropriate positioning strategies with regard to the public. Just as developing a good CSR strategy depends on taking societal issues into consideration, firms adopting CA strategies need to develop expertise in producing and delivering product or service offerings. Of course, the two strategies can be used separately or concurrently, depending ield, and one strategy may even have counterintuitive effects on the other. For instance, Cornelius et al. (2008) noted that positive CA associations contribute to favorable CSR associations, even though these would seem to be very different realms of publ ic perception s of a firm. Given the importance and complexities of CA and CSR strategies, this study will pubic. By finding the different strategy used by different firms, this study can provide the evidence on how different firms use the appropriate content strategy to increase the CA association or CSR associations.
29 Stakeholder Engagement and Social M edia Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholders are defined as those who have a s take or an interest in a company whether they impact or are impacted by a company including employees, suppliers, customers, the local community, and the environment ( Post, Preston, & Sachs, 2002). Thus, stakeholders may be either internal or external to a firm. All stakeholders are critical in determining the growth, success, or even the survival of a firm, so creating and maintaining good stakeholder relationships is vital for corporations. endas in recent years, encouraged by the increasing importance of social media and other forms of interactive media (Luoma aho, 2015). Defined as a relationship between the parti s takeholder engagement matters for firms mation and experiences (Grigore, Theofilou, Watson, & Sthapitanonda 2015). Ideally, this is a two way street where the distance between stakeholders and firms is shortened by mutual understanding. From the corporate perspective, stakeholder engagement is of great as to reach them more effectively. From the point of view of customers, it helps firms deliver products or brand information as instantly as possible. S takeholder engagement results in value creation which signifies a change from the consensus that, in order to reach this ideal, good communication is needed to build
30 quality organization stakeholder relationships (Jam ali, 2008). Thus, stakeholder engagement is closely aligned with communication. Social media ha ve created a favorable environment for this sort of engagement as customers and communication professionals can now communicate instantly online (Missonier & Lou frani Fedida, 2014). In other words, social media creates a platform for stakeholders and firms to have two way communication more efficiently and effectively. It is worthwhile to notice that the social media can act to broadcast, and the stakeholders can directly see the messages posted by the company without gatekeepers Therefore, how to communicate with those stakeholders can directly influence their engagement with the corporation. To be more specific, different stakeholders represent different type s of interests. For example, on the one hand, the product buyers are more willing to get more information on corporate ability and leading to a higher level of confidence in the product or service. On the other hand, NGO s are more willing to see the corporat ion post content on social responsibility. As it is clear that the audience s or stakeholders of the company var y especially for the companies in different sizes, so it is likely that it may use different communication strate gies Social Media and Social Networking Communication Strategies One of the most notable advancements in information and communication technology (ICT) is, of course, the Internet, which allows us to speak to each other without gatekeepers inform ourselves, and be entertained ( Jothi Neelamalar, & Prasad 2011). i nternet based technologies have been widely used by communication professionals to communicate with customers. Now, social networking websites have created an online community for people to share or explore interests and activities, enabling users to interact with an
31 audience via chatting, messaging, emailing, video, or audio calls, file sharing, and discussion (Mauroner & Fauck, 2014). Thus, social media platforms enable both communication professionals and target markets to interact with and understand each other better. Many types of business, large and small, favor social network ing websites that enable communication professionals Hosseinali Mirza, de Marcellis Warin, and Warin (2015) summari ze the benefits of social media marketing in five points: 1) Popularizing the brand, product or services with a ta rget market more accurately; 2) Informing target customers about brand presence and product information instantly; 3) Encouraging healthy competition in the market; 4) Facil itating social benefits for the brand; 5) Persuading audiences to interact with the brand ( Jothi et al 2011). Baruah (2012) added that social media are tools of communication, sources of information, important customer interaction tools as well as crisis communicati on tools, while also being cost effective, sharing ideas, bridging communication gaps, and more. It is difficult to achieve such benefits via traditional marketing tactics, so communication professionals have been rushing to use social media as effectively as possible. Nowadays, many co mmunication practitioner s present their ads in an interactive form, which enables users to engage in the advertisement by participating in business Strasek, 2014). I nteract ivity makes the ad more interesting for users, while giving communication practitioners more efficient channels to acquire instant feedback from Since the primary feature o f social networking websites is user generated content
32 brand or product related content on social media platforms, serving as digital word of mouth to promote the brand o r product. Currently, it is a trend for firms regardless of their size to utilize social media to promote their brand equity among the target market (Ferguson, 2008). Social media advertising can facilitate creating and maintaining a favorable brand ima ge among a target market cheaply and efficiently (Hill Provost, & Volinsky, 2006). In fact, Muiz and Schau (2007) pointed out that social media marketing is actually customer centric in nature. This means that customers are expected to play a critical ro le in the communication facilitated by these platforms, exactly the sort of involvement and participation communication professionals crave, since customers determine their fate. Currently, the social media most exploited by businesses are Twitter, Fac ebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google, and location based social media tools. It is reported that the number of monthly active users of Facebook has reached 1.59 billion, that of Instagram 400 million, that of Twitter 320 million, and that of Google 300 million (Social Times, 2016). Clearly, Facebook has the largest number of active users at the moment, suggesting that Facebook could be the ideal social media platform for businesses looking to initiate social media marketing. In fact, the research results demons trate that 99% of the top brands adopt Facebook, with 97% adopting Twitter, 70% Google, and 69% Pinterest (Social Times, 2016). Meanwhile, 81% of small and medium sized businesses use social media (Wagner, 2014). In the US, it is estimated that 88% of firm s are using social media for marketing purposes (Bennett, 2014). L imited research has been conducted to analyze the dominant corporate strategies applied on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
33 Though many studies have been con ducted to analyze the usage of Facebook and Twitter, it is not certain how the use of Twitter as part of communication strategies has dominant corporate communication st rategies used well as their success, the following section proposes the research questions. Interactive Tactics on Social Media Social media significantly differ s from traditional media (Marchese, 2007). S ocial media does not only consist the original conte nt created by users, but also contain the (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010) Moreover, users have more abilities to participate in the on line dialogic communication and create community values rather than passively receiving media messages. Therefore, the interactive tactics used in social media are important to understand how corporates communicate with publics via different communication strategies. U sers can send and read no more than 140 character messages on Twitter which are called "tweets" (Twitter, 2014). The 140 character limitation has resulted in the usage of hyperlinks w hich can help readers to link to other website pages. Moreover users can classify Twitter posts by topics or types with hashtags words or phrases started with a "#" sign. Users can include text, Image s, videos, and hyperlinks within the tweets. In this study, tactics refer to how corporates interact with t he publics with the techniques provided by Twitter. In addition, Statista, the number of monthly active users reached 271 million in the second quarter of 2014 (Statista, 2014). Twitter provides possibilities for users, both individuals and
34 corporations, with var ious ways to become interactive. Basically, users can follow other the information updated by the interact with others by directing a message to another user with the @ sign (Honeycutt & Herring, 2009). The user who receives the message can reply to the message sender someone else has posted by retweeting it. T he Research Questio ns From the many previous studies on corporate communication strategies, a key finding is that communication strategies are critical for firms to establish favorable stakeholder relationships and to facilitate stakeholder engagement. More s pecifically, com munication strategies can be implemented at different levels and included in almost every business activity in order to create favorable communication channels Such strategies are paramount if a company wishes to adapt to rapidly changing business environments. It is also clear that firms need to manage corporate associations so that customers form positive attitudes and behaviors toward the brand and its products or services. While CA focuse s on creating or improving products or services, CSR communication focuses on the company and societal issues. Based on the importance of comprehensive communication strategies as well as CSR and CA in the new social media environment, this study aims to f ill a gap in the scholarly literature by investigating how Fortune 100 0 firms use Twitter to facilitate positive CA associations, or posi tive CSR associations, or both.
35 RQ 1: To what extent do the corporations engage in online CSR communication and CA commu nication via Twitter? In other word s what number of total and what proportion of total Twitter tweets are CSR related, and CA related ? This thesis focuses in particular o n investigating the difference s in strategies employed by various compan ies because different businesses will have distinct goals, mission statements, and marketing objectives. This research attempt s to answer the following research questions by making cross comparisons between Twitter messages within and across corporat e categor ies The corporations used in this study are from Fortune 10 00 list, and both the top rank ed and the bottom rank ed corporation group s are analyzed Furthermore, the Twitter is broadly utilized to cultivat e a potential environment for open dialogue and also to foster two way comm unica tion with online users. Twitter provide s a n efficient way to reach more targeted publics (Wright & Hinson, 2013) by using inter active tactics of communication, and corporations can use different tactic s to interact with stakeholders and the tactics used between each group and within the group s become one of the research areas T he detailed standard s will be elaborated in C hapter 3 Comparison Between the Corporation Group s RQ2 a : Do the top ran king s post a higher ratio of CA tweets to total tweets than the bottom ranking s do ? RQ2 b: Do the top rank ing s post a higher ratio of CSR tweets to total tweets than the bottom ranking s do ? RQ3 a: What are the tactics used most frequently in CSR related tweet s posted by the top ranking compared to bottom ranking accounts ? RQ3 b: What are the tactics used most frequently in CA related tweet s posted by the top ranking compared to bottom ranking accounts ? Comparison Within the Corporation Group
36 RQ4 a: For the top tweets higher than, equal to, or less than the ratio of CSR tweets to to tal tweets? RQ4 b: For the bottom is the ratio of CA tweets to total tweets higher than, equal to, or less than the ratio of CSR tweets to total tweets? RQ5 a: What are the most frequently used tactics posted by the top ranking ? RQ5 b: What are the most frequently used tactics posted by the bottom ranking ? In the current business world, competitive strategies are vital, and a corporation may adop t both CA strategy an d CSR strategy at the simil ar strength (a hybrid strategy), and Kim and Rader (2010) discussed a detailed method to determine whether the corporate is using hybrid strategy. In specific, the account will be treated as using hybrid strategy when the ratio of CA tweets to total t weets is similar to the ratio of CSR tweets to total tweets For such businesses their social media accounts often serve mixed purpose s and it is therefore worthwhile to check how often different group of corporations adapt th e hybrid strategy. This then leads to another question this study will explore: RQ6 : Are the top ranking s more likely to conduct a hybrid strategy than the bottom r ank ing s ? Finally, the research on stakeholder engagement and social media illustrates that communication is necessary to facilitate successful stakeholder engagement, which benefits firms by letting them understand target markets and receive feedback more effectively. In particular, the findings show that social media platforms are effective in improving stakeholder engagement RQ7 : Will different communication strategies have different results on stakeholder engagement for top ranking and bottom ?
37 All in all, the findings of this study can have many practical implications for firms trying to understand the most effective way of improving their corporate associations and to strategize about communication in contemporary media platforms.
38 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY A s one of the biggest micro bl ogging service s Twitter has experienced dramatic growth since its inception Twitter is widely used by corporations to communicate with their stakeholders (Slegg, 2013) The research conducted in this study aimed to describe and analyze how the targeted corporations used Twitter to communicate with different stakeholders in order to improve corporate ability (CA) and to promote corporate social responsibility (CSR). A content a nalysis of corporations that were sel ected in this research was performed in both a quantitative and qualitati ve way, which provides a clear and unique opportunity to understand the role that Twitter plays in allowing corporations to effectively communicate with stakeholders. Selecting Cases To get a better understanding of how differently companies have participated in the CA and CSR communication standards with Twitter in terms of their revenue the researcher select ed companies from the Fortune 10 00 list of the most recent ava ila ble list as research subjects There were 21 industry sectors in the Fortune 1000 list i n total so the companies were divided into two groups by revenu e : 21 compan ies from the top of each industry were sorted into the top ranking companies group, and the other 21 companies from the bottom of each industry sector were divided into the bottom ranking companies group. Af ter selecting the companies, the researcher confirmed that these businesses did not f 334 and 667 The criteria of Fortune 10 00 companies were fiscal year (201 5 ). Those companies were selected for this study because they can
39 clearly illustrate how Twitter communication strategies use d by companies differ across high and low revenue range s Moreover, this selection strategy wa s able to control for industry variance as all companies are separated in each industry sector In order to verify the authenticity of corporate Twitter accounts, t he researcher official website I could not be found on the website, the n related Twitter accounts were checked to see whether they were verified with a badge by Twitter. See the table 3 1 and table 3 2 for a full description of all the selected companie s with their Twitter accounts. Selecting Tweets To increase the strength of the study and perform a more thorough analysis of CA and CSR communication strategies via Twitter, t weets from the Twitter account s of 42 companies were analyzed Twitter itself provides a service of authenticating celebrity user or corporate accounts with a badge, and this badge was then used by the researcher to gather data from the official public Twitter timeli nes of the selected companies. As described in Chapter 1, companies are becoming more and more likely to use Twitter as a way of communicating with the general public. In order to conduct a more holistic analysis, corporations across all 21 industries were selected from the Fortune 1000 list of companies in 201 5 Finally, tweets from random ly selected Twitter feed Two time frames were selected at random by random number table: March 20 th to 24 th 2017 as week 1, and June 5 th to 9 th 2017 as week 2. The researcher analyzed the tweets only on weekdays of selected weeks separately, to make sure they were on normal business operations. Because the research focuses are on the ry times
40 Content Analysis Content analysis is a research technique used to acquire and analyze information. It has been a cknowledged that content analysis is related to three distinct methods which respectively are conventional, directed, and summative (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Content analysis also systematically classif ies and describe s communication content on the basis of concrete, predestined types (Wright & Page, 1959 ). The analysis includes several compari sons among 42 different companies. T he first part of the study exam ined CSR strategy related tweets posted by different cor porations, which primari ly consisted of the posted messages and the ensuing dialogue (i.e. retweets) generat ed by these tweets. The latter half of the study evaluated CA strategy related tweets Moreover, how stakeholder communication react ed to the checking the number of retweets, likes, and comments for the CA or CSR related tweets T his research primarily focused on Twitter, and the selected companies normally have at least one officially verified Twitter account readily accessible on th eir websites. In this study, the majority of the selected companies have Twitter accounts. When it came to communication strategies promoted via Twitter, different companies tend to adopt different methods which gave this study a unique chance to make comparative studies Existence of CSR Related Content It is now general knowledge that once information has been posted online, it is almost impossible for such data to ever be permanently deleted. Often such information
41 can be available for a very long time, especially when it is posted publicly. Content ana lysis was therefore easily feasible for this study. CSR Related Content CSR is a process that first and foremost focus es on social activities, but can also characterize outcomes resulting from such social activities. According to Coombs and Holladay (2011) CSR is the voluntary actions that a corporation implements as it pursues its mission and fulfills its perceived obligations to stakeholders, including employee, communities, the environment, and society as a whole Therefore, the organizations need to communicate with society to meet those expectations, and CSR communication strategy can be treated as any attempt to create contribution to society in terms of social concern s ( Kim & Rader 2010 ) From the broad perspective of free market liberalists, organizations and enterprises have the obligation to consider e nvironmental and social issues in addition to pursuing profits (Ihlen, 2011). For content to be considered pertinent to CSR then, it must demonstrate a number of qualities. The tweets should include elements of organizational governance, human rights, labor practices, fair operating practices, consumer issues, environment, or community involvement ( ISO, 2009 ) which meet the goals of upholding social and corporate respo nsibility to the public as well as key stakeholders. Table 3 3 lists the detailed definition of those elements related to CSR communication. C orporate A bility Related Content Unli k e CSR, CA pays attenti on to corporate competence In a more specific sense, K im and Rader (2010) illustrate emphasizes building reputation related
42 s capabilities to deliver high quality products or services The requirements for being considered CA content then includes another set of stan d ards. CA mainly focuses on the development and p erformance of the business. CA related content includes expertise in product or service quality, global business, implemen tation of quality control program s industry leadership, market orien tation, and innovation or research and development (R&D) efforts ( Kim et al., 2014 ). Table 3 4 lists the detailed definition of those elements related to CA communication. Twitter Tactics and S takeholder E ngagement Twitter is a social media platform that provides messaging services to users business world, many corporations communicate with the public through media like Twitter Studies have shown that most of Fortune 1000 companies tend to us e Twitter, which gives Twitter a leading position among social media platforms (Schaefer, 2013) This paper aim s to analyze different communication strategies emp loyed on Twitter and the corresponding T witter tactics used in the communication strategies Specifically, how corporates use text, emojis, images hyperlink s video hashtag and mention in different communication strategies. Table 3 5 lists t he detailed description of the T witter tactics. quantified as how audience responds to the tweets. As discussed before, users can react to the tweets by commenting, retweeting, and liking the corresponding tweets. And accounts. Table 3 6 lists the detailed description on the information used to quantify the interactions.
43 Coding Sheet Construction The codin g guide of this paper was built on the basis of previous analysis (Kim, Kim & Sung, 2014 ; Kim & Rader, 2010 ) so as to perf orm the content analysis of selected Twitter accounts. The information of CSR and CA and corresponding tweet tactics were composed of the published data of the selected accounts.
44 Table 3 1 Classification of the corporations and their T witter accounts. Sector Company Name Rank Twitter Account Revenue ($Million) Group 1 Top ranked Corporate s Aerospace & Defense Boeing 27 @Boeing $90,762 Apparel Nike 106 @Nike $27,799 Business Services ManpowerGroup 144 @ManpowerGroup $20,763 Chemical Dow Chemicals 48 @DowChemical $58,167 Energy Exxon Mobil 2 @exxonmobil $382,597 Engineering & Construction Fluor 136 @FluorCorp $21,532 Financials General Electric 8 @generalelectric $148,321 Food & Drug Stores CVS Health 10 @CVSHealth $139,367 Food, Beverages & Tobacco PepsiCo 44 @PepsiCo $66,683 Health Care UnitedHealth Group 14 @UnitedHealthGrp $130,474 Hotels, Rest au rants & Leisure McDonald's 110 @McDonaldsCorp $27,441 Household Products Procter & Gamble 32 @ProcterGamble $84,537 Industrials Caterpillar 54 @CaterpillarInc $55,184 Materials International Paper 114 @IntlPaperCo $26,221 Media Walt Disney 57 @Disney $48,813 Motor Vehicles & Parts General Motors 6 @GM $155,929 Retailing Walmart 1 @Walmart $482,130 Technology HP 19 @HP $111,454 Telecommunicatio ns AT&T 12 @ATT $132,447 Transportation UPS 47 @UPS $58,232 Wholesalers McKesson 11 @McKesson $138,030 Group 2 Bottom ranked Corporate s Aerospace & Defense AAR 997 @AARCORP $2,035 Apparel Columbia Sportswear 982 @Columbia1938 $2,101 Business Services TrueBlue 960 @TBStaffing $2,174 Chemical H.B. Fuller 979 @GlueTalk $2,105 Energy Willbros Group 992 @willbros $2,063 Engineering & Construction Hovnanian Enterprises 991 @khov $2,063 Financials E*Trade Financial 1000 @etrade $2,019
45 Table 3 1. Continued Sector Company Name Rank Twitter Account Revenue ($Million) Food & Drug Stores Diplomat Pharmacy 946 @DiplomatRx $2,215 Food, Beverages & Tobacco Brown Forman 756 @BrownFormanJo bs $2,991 Health Care Intuitive Surgical 973 @IntuitiveSurg $2,132 Hotels, Rest a urants & Leisure Wendy's 993 @Wendys $2,061 Household Products Nu Skin Enterprises 845 @nuskin $2,570 Industrials International Game Technology 994 @IGTNews $2,058 Materials Carpenter Technology 962 @CarpenterTech $2,173 Media Cinemark Holdings 827 @Cinemark $2,627 Motor Vehicles & Parts Allison Transmission Holdings 974 @AllisonTrans $2,127 Retailing Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack 989 @pepboysauto $2,078 Technology Synopsys 99 5 @synopsys $2, 0 58 Telecommunicatio ns Equinix 884 @Equinix $2,444 Transportation Werner Enterprises 971 @One_Werner $2,139 Wholesalers Applied Industrial Technologies 880 @Applied_Ind $2,2 28 The following companies either do not have an official account, or tweets during research time frames can not be obtained: Apple (rank 5), Gartner (rank 999) from sector Technology Pinnacle Foods (rank 839) from sector Food, Beverages & Tobacco sector and Pool (rank 937) from sector Wholesalers So they are replaced by the following accounts acco rding to the order in Fortune 1000 List: HP (rank 19), Synopsys (995) from sector Techno logy, Brown Forman (rank 756) from sector Food, Beverages & Tobacco sector and Applied Industrial Technologies (rank 880) from sector Wholesalers.
46 Table 3 2 General information of the selected accounts. Account Total Tweets Following Followers Total Likes Joined Date Group 1 Top ranked Corporates @Boeing 4,483 229 393K 631 Mar 09 @Nike 32.8K 155 7.18M 5,582 Nov 11 @ManpowerGroup 2,618 559 5,340 819 Mar 11 @DowChemical 13.5K 1,870 53.4K 3,775 Aug 08 @exxonmobil 6,419 272 264K 79 Apr 09 @FluorCorp 2,873 533 9,756 1,137 Aug 10 @generalelectric 82.7K 14.5K 446K 1,654 Mar 11 @CVSHealth 7,923 4,824 32K 9,246 Mar 10 @PepsiCo 23.9K 15.1K 322K 475 Feb 09 @UnitedHealthGrp 1,300 187 11.3K 84 Oct 12 @McDonaldsCorp 237K 11.6K 161K 4,715 Feb 10 @ProcterGamble 6,982 901 176K 6,074 Mar 09 @CaterpillarInc 7,669 191 112K 401 Jun 08 @IntlPaperCo 1,330 71 4,558 567 May 13 @Disney 8,612 47 5.57M 11 Aug 09 @GM 13.4K 6,325 611K 612 Dec 07 @Walmart 487K 4,116 891K 2,023 Nov 08 @HP 38.1K 2,640 1.06M 6,862 Nov 08 @ATT 89.4K 8,324 828K 6,723 May 08 @UPS 27.7K 10.9K 186K 27.4K Jun 10 @McKesson 4,055 989 17.2K 1,271 May 10 Group 2. Bottom ranked Corporates @AARCORP 3,928 1,671 2,573 1,685 Nov 12 @Columbia1938 20.2K 4,021 114K 17.6K Apr 11 @TBStaffing 3,051 755 832 35 Jul 13 @GlueTalk 3,090 162 1,854 75 Nov 09 @willbros 300 184 989 18 Jul 11 @khov 6,727 219 7,612 1,096 Sep 09 @etrade 11.6K 555 56.9K 1,642 Apr 09 @DiplomatRx 5,484 1,308 4,752 444 Nov 08 @BrownFormanJo bs 2,192 452 2,146 968 Oct 13 @IntuitiveSurg 329 68 3,142 32 Jun 12 @Wendys 107K 1,249 2.03M 24.7K Jul 09 @nuskin 7,125 236 32.7K 161 Sep 08 @IGTNews 4,635 822 12.6K 608 Oct 10 @CarpenterTech 1,087 317 1,431 139 Jun 10
47 Table 3 2. Continued Account Total Tweets Following Followers Total Likes Joined Date @Cinemark 16.3K 1,072 50.7K 13.4K Sep 11 @AllisonTrans 239 155 1,635 171 Jun 09 @pepboysauto 28.7K 2,750 22.1K 766 Oct 08 @synopsys 3,433 2,686 11.8k 165 Nov 08 @Equinix 8,073 1,071 20.5K 562 Apr 09 @One_Werner 5,285 810 6,238 1,237 Jul 09 @Applied_Ind 97 10 520 1 Jul 11 Table 3 3 CSR related tweets categories. CSR Type Definition Strength Organizational Governance organizations make and implements decision in pursuit p.21) Limited Compensation Ownership Transparency (new 2005) Political Accountability (new 2005) Other Strength Human Rights human beings are entitled because they are human Indig enous Peoples Relations (new 200 2) Labor Rights Strength (added 2002) Other Strength Labor Practices practices rela ting to work performed within, by or on (ISO, 2009, p.32) Union Relations Cash Profit Sharing Employee Involvement Retirement Benefits Health and Safety Other Strength Fair Operating Practices an other organizations and CEO Promotion Board of Directors Work/Life Benefits Women & Minority Contracting Employment of the Disabled Gay & Lesbian Policies Other Strength
48 Table 3 3. Continued CSR Type Definition Strength Consumer Issues and accurate information, using fair, transparent and helpful marketing [of] information and contractual processes and promoting (p.50) Quality R&D Innovation Benefits to Economically Disadvantaged Other Strength Environment is a precondition for the survival and prosperity of 41) living and non living resources, the location of the activities of the organization, the generation of pollution and waste, and the implications of products. And services for 40) Beneficial Products and Se rvices Pollution Prevention Recycling Clean Energy Communications Management Systems Other Strength Community Involvement a nd Development helps to strengthen civil society and encompass support for and identification within the 2009, p.59) Charitable Giving, Innovative giving Non U.S. Charitable Giving Support for Housing Support for Education Indigenous Peoples Relations (moved 2002) Volunteer Programs (new 2005) Other Strength Source from Henriques, 2011
49 Table 3 4 CA related tweets categories CA Categories Definition Expertise i n Product or Service Quality high quality. Global S uccess The information on how corporate deliver products or services worldwide. Implementation of Quality Control P rogram The content about how corporate focus on the quality. Industry L eadership is one of the best within the industry. Market O rientation A company philosophy focused on discovering and meeting the needs and desires of its customers through its product mix. Innovation and R&D E fforts The investigative activities a business conducts to improve ex isting products and procedures or to lead to the development of new products and procedures. Source from Kim & Rader, 2010. Table 3 5 Explanation of T witter tactics Tactic Description Text The tweet inclu des words within 140 characters. Image The tweet includes a picture /graphic/gif attachment Video The tweet includes a video attachment Emoji A small image in the tweet sentence, either static or animated, that represents a facial expression, an entity or a concept in digital communications. Hyperlink Embed the original URL (or shortened version of the original URL) into the tweet, providing tweet receiver with access to extra information by clicking on links embedded within tweets. Hashtag Hashtags assign a topic to a tweet. For example, tweets that contain #WorldCup are about just that. Click on a hashtag to see tweets related to a topic. Mention others The tweet directly r efers to others by using @ sign. Table 3 6 Explanation of T witter interactions element s. Interactions Description Comments The number of comments made by other users except for message senders Retweets The number of users who repeat the original tweet sent by message sender usually preceded by RT@T w itteruser of followed by (via @T Like s The number of users who like the tweet
50 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS First, 42 companies from the Fortune 1000 list were selected as cases for study. website, and these Twitter accounts were analyzed for content across two time periods: Ma rch 20 th to 24 th 2017, and June 5 th to 9 th 2017 The corporations were divided into two groups: 1) the 21 companies at the top of their industry sectors in terms of revenue, and 2) the 21 companies at the bottom of their industry sectors. During the 10 d ays when data was collected, these 42 accounts posted a total of 871 tweets, 730 (83.81%) of which were related to CSR initiatives, 544 (62.46%) of which were related to CA initiatives, and 473 (54.31%) of which were related to both CSR and CA. CSR related and CA related tweets were reviewed and analyzed in terms of the categories of CSR related or CA related content, the Twitter tactics used in the tweets, and the level of interactivity of the tweets. To effectively answer the research questions, the frequ encies and descriptive statistics of the indices in the coding sheet were recorded. Moreover, to check whether the research results were consistent and reliable, the researcher utilized an intercoder reliability test by asking the two coders, who were tra ined to analyze and code tweets, to perform content analysis on the same sample. Seven companies and their tweets were randomly selected by computer and double coded to ensure intercoder reliability in the analysis process. In all, 143 tweets were double c oded, which was 16.42% of the total selected tweets. The resulting intercoder
51 Communication and CA Communication via Twitter One of the key questions is how often the corporations issue CSR and CA communications on Twitter, leading to RQ1: To what extent do the corporations engage in online CSR communication and CA communication via Twitter? In other words, what was the number and proportion o f CSR related and of CA related tweets out of the total tweets? To answer this research question regarding the extent to which corporations engage in online CSR communication and CA communication via Twitter, the research question was reframed more specifi cally into two separate questions: 1) What is the percentage of CSR related content out of all the Twitter messages issued by the accounts of the two groups together making up the 42 companies, and 2) What is the percentage of CA related content out of all the Twitter messages issued by the accounts of the two groups together making up the 42 companies? To address the second research question, each tweet sent by one of the 42 companies during the study period was reviewed and classified based on the classif ication standards discussed in Chapter 3. The tweets containing the CSR related information listed in Table 3 3 were classified as CSR related, and the tweets containing the CA related information in Table 3 4 were categorized as CA related. Those tweets c ontaining both kinds of content were categorized as both related. According to Table 4 1, the total number of tweets posted in the study period by the accounts of the 42 companies was 871 for the two week s period of which CSR related tweets made up 83.81% (n=730), while the number of CA related tweets was 544, 62.46% of the total tweets. Thus, it is clear that the selected companies were more likely to post CSR related content than CA related content on Twitter.
52 Comparison Between the Corporation Groups An other focus of this study is on the differences in strategies employed by different kinds of companies, since different businesses will have distinct goals, mission statements, and marketing objectives. This study attempted to explore that question by maki ng cross comparisons between CA related and CSR related tweets from companies in the top ranked group and companies in the bottom ranked group. Specifically, the research questions were: 1) RQ2a: Do the top accounts post a higher rati o of CA tweets to total tweets than the bottom ranking higher ratio of CSR tweets to total tweets than the bottom accounts do? Taking the types of co rporations into consideration revealed how the CSR related tweets and the CA related tweets were emphasized differently by corporations in different echelons (see Table 4 2 and Figure 4 1). Specifically, the selected companies in Group 1 (top ranked compan ies) generated 514 tweets all together, of which 279 were CA related, accounting for 54.28% of the total Group 1 tweets. In contrast, the selected corporations in Group 2 (bottom ranked companies) generated 357 tweets in total, of which 74.23% were CA rela ted. It is clear that the bottom ranked companies were more likely than the top ranked companies to produce CA related content. To confirm this result, a test for two proportions was utilized to compare the proportion of CA related content between the two groups of corporations, for which the null hypothesis was that the proportion of CA related content of the 21 top ranked companies was not different from the proportion of CA related content of the 21 bottom ranked companies. The test for comparing two pro portions showed that the z value was
53 5.98 and the p value was less than 0.001, meaning that there was sufficient evidence at the 0.05 level to indicate that the top ranked companies posted a significantly lower proportion of CA related tweets than the bot tom ranked companies. related tweets revealed a different pattern. To be specific, during the study period, the top ranked corporations posted 478 CSR related tweets, which accounted for 93% of the total tweets produced by those companies. However, only 70.59% (n=252) of the bottom tweets were related to CSR. This result indicates that the top ranked corporations are likely to produce more CSR related content. To confirm this result, a te st for two proportions was utilized to compare the proportion of CSR related content in the two groups, for which the null hypothesis was that the proportion of CSR related content of the 21 top ranked companies was not different from the proportion of CSR related content of the 21 bottom ranked companies. The test for comparing two proportions showed that the z value was 8.83 and the p value less than 0.001, meaning that there was sufficient evidence at the 0.05 level to indicate that the top ranked compan ies posted a significantly higher proportion of CSR related tweets than the bottom ranked companies. Another question concerned which tactics are commonly used by companies when they conduct CSR communication and CA communication tactics including element s such as text, emojis, images, videos, hyperlinks (URLs), hashtags (# sign), and mentions of others (@ sign). To be specific, two more research questions were asked: 1) RQ3a: What are the tactics used most frequently in CSR related tweets posted by the ac counts of the top ranked companies as compared to those of the
54 bottom ranked corporations? 2) RQ3b: What are the tactics used most frequently in CA related tweets posted by accounts of the top ranked companies as compared to those of the bottom ranked corp orations? These questions are concerned with the tactics used in Twitter based online CSR communication and CA communication, and how the tactics used differ between the two different groups of corporations. Table 4 3 and Figure 4 2 show how the 42 compani es used different tactics in their CSR related tweets. To better compare the difference between the top ranked companies and the bottom ranked companies, the usage of tactics is shown separately for each group of corporations. For both the top ranked and b ottom ranked corporations, the most frequently used tactic was the inclusion of text, which is unsurprising because Twitter users normally use textual content to express ideas. However, leaving text aside, the top ranked corporations were more likely to us e hashtags (65.69% of CSR related tweets) than the bottom ranked corporations (56.35%). Furthermore, the bottom ranked corporations used hyperlinks (60.71%) more than the top ranked corporations (51.67%). A hashtag is used to refer a hot topic or popular t rend, while a hyperlink is used to refer to an external resource, meaning that top ranked corporations were more likely to use hashtags to connect their discussion to a trending Twitter topic. Moreover, the top ranked companies were more likely to include images (60.46%) than the bottom ranked corporations (53.17%), a more concrete method of conveying an idea. Similarly, top ranked corporations used more emojis in their CSR communication (9.41%) than bottom ranked corporations did (2.38%) A series of propo rtion tests were utilized to compare the proportions of
55 different tactics used in CSR related content across the two groups (see Table 4 3), confirming these results. Table 4 4 and Figure 4 3 indicate how the 42 companies used different tactics in their C A related tweets. Again, the usage of tactics is shown separately for each group of corporations. Apart from text, the 21 top ranked corporations were more likely to use an image (picture, graphic, or gif) in their CA communications (68.82%), as compared t o the bottom ranked corporations (50.57%). However, among the CA related tweets, the bottom ranked corporations used video more (15.09%) than the top ranked corporations did. This result indicates that for CA communication, the bottom ranked companies tend ed to utilize more vivid resources (videos) to demonstrate their corporate ability than the top ranked companies, which tended to use images. Comparison Within the Corporation Groups The results in the last section indicate that, because of their different business goals and stages of development, different corporations put different levels of effort into CSR and CA communications. This study also investigated whether the extent of CSR communication differed from that of CA communication even within corpora tion groups, related tweets and CSR related tweets within each group. This was done in order to answer the following research questions: 1) RQ4a: For the top tweets to total tweets higher than, equal to, or less than the ratio of CSR tweets to total tweets? 2) RQ4b: For the bottom tweets to total tweets higher than, equal to, or less than the ratio of CSR twee ts to total tweets? The results showed that the relative proportions did indeed differ within corporation groups.
56 For example, Table 4 2 shows how CSR related tweets and CA related tweets were emphasized differently by the top ranked corporations. Specific ally, the top ranked companies generated 514 tweets in total, of which 279 were related to CA, or 54.28% of the total tweets. In contrast, 93% of the tweets generated by the top ranked companies were related to CSR. Thus it is obvious that the top ranked c ompanies were more likely to produce CSR related than CA related content. To confirm this result, a test for two proportions was utilized to compare the proportions of CSR related and CA related content produced by the top ranked corporations, for which th e null hypothesis was that the proportion of CA related content was not different from the proportion of CSR related content produced by the 21 top ranked companies. The test for comparing two proportions showed that the z value was 10.18 and the p value less than 0.001, meaning there was sufficient evidence at the 0.05 level to indicate that the top ranked companies posted a significantly lower proportion of CA related tweets than of CSR related tweets. However, the bottom of CSR related and CA related tweets revealed a different pattern. Specifically, during the study period, the bottom ranked corporations posted 252 CSR related tweets, or 70.59% of the total tweets. On the other hand, 74.23% (n=265) of the total tweets we re related to CA. This result indicates that the bottom ranked corporations exert similar levels of effort in producing both CSR related and CA related content. To confirm this result, a test for two proportions was utilized to compare the proportions of C SR related and CA related content produced by the bottom ranked corporations, for which the null hypothesis was that the proportion of CA related content did not differ from the proportion of CSR
57 related content produced by the 21 bottom ranked companies. The test for comparing two proportions show that the z value was 0.937 and the p value was 0.349, which is not significant, and therefore the null hypothesis could not be rejected, indicating that the bottom ranked companies posted similar proportions of CA related tweets and CSR related tweets. Another topic of interest was whether different tactics are used in CSR and in CA communication by the companies within each group. To be specific, two more research questions were asked: 1) RQ5a: What tactics are the most frequently used by the top the bottom Table 4 3 and Table 4 4 show how the 42 companies used different tactics in their CSR relat ed tweets than in their CA related tweets. As indicated in the last section, the hashtag (65.69%) was the tactic most frequently used by top ranked corporations in their CSR related tweets. However, when these top ranked corporations conducted CA related communications, they were more likely to use images (68.82%). On the other hand, the 21 bottom ranked corporations utilized the hyperlink most frequently in both CSR related and CA related communications. As discussed in the literature review section, corporations utilize different communication strategies to help them achieve different goals. Some corporations may have their preference when they generate the tweets. More interestingly, corporations may use a hybrid strategy, concentrating equally on CSR and CA communication. This naturally leads to another question: RQ6: Are the top more likely to conduct a hybrid strategy than the bottom
58 accounts? In thi s study, a test for two proportions was utilized to compare the proportion of CSR related and CA related content produced by the top ranked corporations, for which the null hypothesis was that the proportion of CA related content was not different from the proportion of CSR related content produced by the 42 selected companies. A corporation was considered to concentrate equally on CSR and CA communication when the p value was higher than 0.05. Table 4 5 shows there were 5 top ranked companies that equally emphasized CSR and CA. However, 14 bottom ranked companies generated similar proportions of CSR related and CA related tweets. Compared to the top ranked corporations, the bottom ranked companies were thus much more likely to post similar proportions of CA related tweets and CSR related tweets. Results of Different Communication Strategies on Stakeholder Engagement To address the relationship between the communication strategies used and the resulting stakeholder engagement, an important question was asked: RQ7: Will different communication strategies have different results on stakeholder engagement for top ranking and bottom and how the selected companies conducted CSR or CA communication on Tw itter in a two way or interactive communication manner, answering two specific questions: 1) To online interaction? 2) To what degree do the CSR related and CA related t weets disseminated by the Twitter accounts of the different company groups result in different levels of online interaction? Specifically, the level of stakeholder engagement with the ere measured by the number of replies, r etweets, and likes which the tweets received. In addition, the researchers measured how the
59 message receivers responded differently to CSR related tweets and to CA related tweets. As Table 4 6 shows, there were a total of 67,397 Twitter interactions genera ted by the total sample of 871 tweets, including 5,974 (8.86% of total interactions ) comments by other users 26,364 (39.12%) retweets, and 35,059 (52.02%) likes of the tweets. On average, each tweet received 6.86 comment s, 30.27 retweets, and 40.25 likes. These results indicate that the studied accounts did, to a certain degree, succeed in engaging online users. However, this result refers only to how the stakeholders responded to the selected corporations in general. Results regarding the different compan y groups and different communication strategies are shown next. Interactions with the CSR related tweets generated by top Twitter accounts may be seen in Table 4 8. Those companies generated 478 CSR related tweets, which in turn attra cted 54,851 interactions. About 93.59% of the total interactions consisted of retweets (40.14% of CSR related tweets from top ranked accounts ) and likes ( 53.45% ), meaning that each tweet on average was retweeted by 46.06 other users and liked by about 61.33 other users. Comparatively, only 7.35% (n=3,513) of the interactions consisted of comments by other users. CA related original tweets from the Twitter accounts of the top ranked companies numbered 279 during the study period. In total, thos e tweets attracted 16,398 interactions. According to Table 4 10 854 comment s were made by other users to the tweets, which is 5.20% of CA related tweets c tions from top ranked accounts. It also meant each tweet on average had 3.06 comments. The number of retweets and
60 likes were 4,865 (29.67%) and 10,679 (65.12%) respectively, with averages of 17.44 retweets per tweet and 38.28 likes per tweet. related tweets from the Twitter accounts of top ranked companies may be seen in Table 4 12. It is seen that 352 CSR related tweets were generated by top ranked companies during the study period, attracting 6,845 interactions. About 38% of the interactions consisted of retweets an d about 32% were likes, meaning that each tweet, on av erage, was retweeted by about ten other users and favored by about nine other users. Comparatively, only 30.37% (n=2,079) of interactions were comments by other users. Meanwhile, the 21 bottom ranked co rporations generated 265 tweets related to CA initiatives during the study period, which in turn attracted 7,695 interactions in total. As shown by Table 4 14, 2,123 comment s were made by other users to those tweets, which is 27.59% of CA initiatives from bottom ranked accounts. It indicated each tweet generated 8.01 comments on average. The number of retweets and likes were 2,809 (36.50%) and 2,763 (35.91%) respectively, with averages of 10.60 retweets per tweet and 10.43 likes per tweet. Looking at the r esults by corporation groups and communication strategies (as seen in Tables 4 8 4 10 4 12 and 4 1 4) yields the following general results. First, the top ranked companies generated much more stakeholder engagement than the bottom ranked companies did, u nsurprising since, as shown in Table 3 2, the top ranked the indices of stakeholder engagement, the bottom ranked companies received more balanced interactions, meaning tha t their tweets received roughly similar numbers of
61 comments, retweets, and likes. On the other hand, the top generally received high numbers of retweets and likes but lesser numbers of comments. Third, for the top ranked companies, the CSR related tweets generated a much higher number of interactions than the CA related tweets. However, the bottom ranked companies generated nearly equal numbers of interactions with CSR and with CA tweets. Finally, all the z values and p values gene rated by the difference proportion test (see Tables 4 7, 4 9, 4 11, 4 13, and 4 15) demonstrate that the results shown in Tables 4 6, 4 8, 4 10, 4 12, and 4 14 are significant.
62 Table 4 1 The p ercentage of CSR related and CA related t weets in selected tweets. Acc oun t Typ e Twitter Account Name Total numbe r of tweets Number of CSR related tweets Percenta ge of CSR related tweets Numbe r of CA related tweets Percenta ge of CA related tweets Numbe r of Both related tweets Percent age of Both related tweets Top @DowCh emical 62 55 88.71% 42 67.74% 38 61.29% Top @Procter Gamble 55 55 100.00% 10 18.18% 10 18.18% Bott om @Cinem ark 50 37 74.00% 45 90.00% 34 68.00% Top @ATT 46 46 100.00% 1 2.17% 1 2.17% Top @CVSHe alth 40 40 100.00% 33 82.50% 33 82.50% Top @Disney 40 38 95.00% 4 10.00% 4 10.00% Bott om @Brown FormanJ obs 39 36 92.31% 37 94.87% 35 89.74% Top @McKes son 33 25 75.76% 31 93.94% 24 72.73% Top @Caterpi llarInc 32 32 100.00% 21 65.63% 21 65.63% Bott om @AARC ORP 32 26 81.25% 26 81.25% 22 68.75% Top @IntlPap erCo 31 30 96.77% 11 35.48% 11 35.48% Bott om @Colum bia1938 30 18 60.00% 19 63.33% 14 46.67% Bott om @GlueTa lk 28 19 67.86% 23 82.14% 18 64.29% Bott om @One_ Werner 28 25 89.29% 17 60.71% 15 53.57% Top @FluorC orp 25 24 96.00% 23 92.00% 22 88.00% Bott om @TBStaff ing 25 2 8.00% 2 8.00% 2 8.00% Top @genera lelectric 22 22 100.00% 18 81.82% 18 81.82% Top @Walma rt 21 21 100.00% 11 52.38% 11 52.38% Bott om @synops ys 19 9 47.37% 11 57.89% 7 36.84% Top @GM 17 17 100.00% 14 82.35% 14 82.35% Top @UPS 17 12 70.59% 13 76.47% 10 58.82%
63 Table 4 1. Continued Acc oun t Typ e Twitter Account Name Total numbe r of tweets Number of CSR related tweets Percenta ge of CSR related tweets Numbe r of CA related tweets Percenta ge of CA related tweets Numbe r of Both related tweets Percent age of Both related tweets Top @McDon aldsCorp 16 15 93.75% 11 68.75% 10 62.50% Bott om @Equinix 16 16 100.00% 14 87.50% 14 87.50% Bott om @etrade 15 9 60.00% 9 60.00% 9 60.00% Top @exxon mobil 13 10 76.92% 9 69.23% 6 46.15% Top @United HealthGr p 11 11 100.00% 6 54.55% 6 54.55% Bott om @khov 10 10 100.00% 10 100.00% 10 100.00 % Bott om @nuskin 10 6 60.00% 5 50.00% 1 10.00% Top @Manpo werGrou p 9 4 44.44% 5 55.56% 3 33.33% Top @PepsiC o 9 7 77.78% 6 66.67% 5 55.56% Bott om @Intuitiv eSurg 9 3 33.33% 7 77.78% 3 33.33% Bott om @Wendy s 9 7 77.78% 8 88.89% 7 77.78% Top @HP 8 8 100.00% 5 62.50% 5 62.50% Bott om @IGTNe ws 7 6 85.71% 6 85.71% 5 71.43% Top @Boeing 6 5 83.33% 4 66.67% 3 50.00% Bott om @Allison Trans 6 6 100.00% 5 83.33% 5 83.33% Bott om @Diplom atRx 6 5 83.33% 6 100.00% 5 83.33% Bott om @willbros 6 3 50.00% 6 100.00% 3 50.00% Bott om @pepboy sauto 5 5 100.00% 4 80.00% 4 80.00% Bott om @Applie d_Ind 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% Bott om @Carpen terTech 3 2 66.67% 3 100.00% 2 66.67%
64 Table 4 1. Continued Acc oun t Typ e Twitter Account Name Total numbe r of tweets Number of CSR related tweets Percenta ge of CSR related tweets Numbe r of CA related tweets Percenta ge of CA related tweets Numbe r of Both related tweets Percent age of Both related tweets Top @Nike 1 1 100.00% 1 100.00% 1 100.00 % Total 871 730 83.81% 544 62.46% 473 54.31% Table 4 2 The p ercentage of CSR related and CA related t weets in top ranking and bottom Accoun t Type Total numbe r of tweets Total Numbe r of CSR related tweets Percentag e of CSR related tweets Total Number of CA related tweets Percentag e of CA related tweets Total Numbe r of Both related tweets Percentag e of Both related tweets Top 514 478 93.00% 279 54.28% 256 49.81 % Bottom 357 252 70.59% 265 74.23% 217 60.78 % Figure 4 1 The p ercentage of CSR related and CA related t weets in top ranking and bottom
65 Table 4 3 tactics. Group 1 Group 2 P roportions Test Tactic Number Percentage Number Percentage z value p value Text 477 99 .79% 249 98.81% 1.71 0.089 Emoji 45 9.41% 6 2.38% 3.28 0.001 Image 289 60.46% 134 53.17% 1.90 0.058 Video 65 13.60% 36 14.29% 0.26 0.798 Hyperlink 247 51.67% 153 60.71% 2.33 0.020 Mention 195 40.80% 93 36.90% 1.03 0.306 Hashtag 314 65.69% 142 56.35% 2.48 0.014 Total CSR Tweets 478 100.00% 252 100.00% Figure 4 2. C communication and the corresponding tactics.
66 Table 4 4 Group 1 Group 2 P roportions Test Tactic Number Percentage Number Percentage z value p value Text 279 100.00% 261 98.49% 2.06 0.040 Emoji 14 5.02% 10 3.77% 0.74 0.459 Image 192 68.82% 134 50.57% 4.34 0.000 Video 24 8.60% 40 15.09% 10.97 0. 000 Hyperlink 182 65.23% 164 61.89% 0.8 1 0. 419 Mention 105 37.63% 96 36.23% 0.34 0. 735 Hashtag 149 53.41% 153 57.74% 1.02 0. 311 Total C A Tweets 279 100.00% 265 100.00% Figure 4 3
67 Table 4 5 The corporations that utilized the hybrid strategy. Account Type Twitter Account Name Total number of tweets Percentage of CSR related tweets Percentage of CA related tweets Percentage difference z value p value Top @Boeing 6 83.33% 66.67% 16.6 7% 0.67 0.535 @exxonmo bil 13 76.92% 69.23% 7.69% 0.44 0.666 @FluorCorp 25 96.00% 92.00% 4.00% 0.60 0.557 @Manpowe rGroup 9 44.44% 55.56% 11.12% 0.47 0.650 @ PepsiCo 9 77 78 % 66 67 % 11.11% 0.53 0.613 Bottom @AARCOR P 32 81.25% 81.25% 0.00% 0.00 1.000 @AllisonTra ns 6 100.00% 83.33% 16.67% 1.04 0.344 @Carpenter Tech 3 66.67% 100.00% 33.33% 1. 10 0.38 8 @Diplomat Rx 6 83.33% 100.00% 16.67% 1.04 0.344 @Applied_I nd 4 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00 1.000 @BrownFor manJobs 39 92.31% 94.87% 2.56% 0.46 0.646 @etrade 15 60.00% 60.00% 0.00% 0.00 1.000 @Columbia 1938 30 60.00% 63.33% 3.33% 0.2 7 0.792 @IGTNews 7 85.71% 85.71 0.00% 0.00 1.000 @etrade 15 60.00% 60.00% 0.00% 0.00 1.000 @pepboysa uto 5 100 00 % 8 0 00 % 20.00% 1.05 0.351 @ nuskin 10 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.4 5 0.66 4 @TBStaffin g 25 8.00% 8.00% 0.00% 0.00 1.000
68 Table 4 6 Stakeholder engagement from total selected tweets. Indices Percentage The average number per tweet Comments 8.86 % (N= 5974 ) 6.86 R etweet s 39.12%(N=26364) 30.27 Likes 52.02%(N=35059) 40.25 Total 100.00%(N=67397) 77.38 Table 4 7 Z value s and p val ues of stakeholder engagement from total selected tweets. Comments Retweets z value p value z value p value Comments 130.084 0.00000 Likes 172.181 0.00000 47.548 0.00000 Table 4 8 Stakeholder engagement from top ranked related tweets Indices Percentage The average number per tweet Comments 6.40 % (N= 3513 ) 7.35 R etweet s 40.14%(N=22019) 46.06 Likes 53.45%(N=29319) 61.33 Total 100.00%(N=54851) 114.75 Table 4 9. Z value s and p value s of stakeh older engagement from top ranked related tweets. Comments Retweets z value p value z value p value Comments 132.234 0.00000 Likes 170.152 0.00000 44.175 0.00000 Table 4 10 Stakeholder engagement from top ranked CA related tweets. Indices Percentage The average number per tweet Comments 5.20 % (N= 854 ) 3.06 R etweet s 29.67%(N=4865) 17.44 Likes 65.12%(N=10679) 38.28 Total 100.00%(N= 16398 ) 58.77 Table 4 11. Z value s and p val ues of stakeholder engagement from top ranked related tweets. Comments Retweets z value p value z value p value Comments 58.399 0.00000 Likes 113.633 0.00000 64.286 0.00000
69 Table 4 12 Stakeholder en gagement from bottom ranked related tweets. Indices Percentage The average number per tweet Comments 30.37 % (N= 2079 ) 8.25 R etweet s 37.84%(N=2590) 10.28 Likes 31.79%(N=2176) 8.63 Total 100.00%(N=6845) 27.16 Table 4 13. Z value s and p value s of stakeholder engagement from bottom ranked related tweets. Comments Retweets z value p value z value p value Comments 9.218 0.00000 Likes 1.795 0.07271 7.430 0.00000 Table 4 14 Stakeholder engagement from bottom ranked related tweets. Indices Percentage The average number per tweet Comments 27.59 % (N= 2123 ) 8.01 R etweet s 36.50%(N=2809) 10.60 Likes 35.91%(N=2763) 10.43 Total 100.00%(N=7695) 29.04 Table 4 15. Z value s and p value s of stakeholder engagement from bottom ranked related tweets. Comments Retweets z value p value z value p value Comments 11.843 0.00000 Likes 11.086 0.00000 0.761 0.44639
70 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The widespread use of social media is replacing traditional communication platforms. This has led public relations practitioners to seek both theoretical and practical insights into the best ways to utilize social media, especially Twitter, a popular, representative platform that allows corporations to communicate and interact with audiences instantly. At the same time, CSR is an increasingly important way for corporations to show they care about the whole society, while CA emphasizes quality services and products. Thus it is necessary for corporations to learn how to conduct CSR and CA communications through social media as effectively and efficiently as possible. In the context of Twitter, companies can choose to emphasize either CSR or CA more, or else to utilize a hybrid strategy that emphasizes both equally. However, many companies are unaware of how best to allocate their resources to such communications and what results they may have on st a k e holder engagement. For this reason, this study aimed to investigate how different types of corporations conducted CSR communication and CA communication with stakeholders on Twitter, and what results their practices yielded. As such, 42 companies were selected from the 2015 Fortune 1000 list for analysis of their corporate Twitter accounts. These accounts were divided into two groups: 1) Group 1 consisted of the accounts run by the top ranked companies in each industry sector, namely @McDonaldsCorp, @ATT, @Boeing, @CaterpillarInc, @CVSHealth, @Disney, @DowChemical, @exxonmo bil, @FluorCorp, @generalelectric, @GM, @HP, @IntlPaperCo, @ManpowerGroup, @McKesson, @Nike, @PepsiCo, @ProcterGamble, @UnitedHealthGrp, @UPS, and @Walmart; 2)
71 Group 2 consisted of the accounts run by the bottom ranked companies in each industry sector, na mely @AARCORP, @AllisonTrans, @Applied_Ind, @BrownFormanJobs, @CarpenterTech, @Cinemark, @Columbia1938, @DiplomatRx, @Equinix, @etrade, @GlueTalk, @IGTNews, @IntuitiveSurg, @khov, @nuskin, @One_Werner, @pepboysauto, @synopsys, @TBStaffing, @Wendys, and @wi llbros. corporations conduct CA and CSR communications differently, how different corporations emphasize different communication strategies, and how the different strategies re sult in differential stakeholder engagement. To answer Research Questions 1 6, a series of detailed analyses were selected c ompanies engaged in both CSR and CA communications, different groups exerted very different levels of effort on generating CSR and CA related tweets. While the bottom ranked companies generated only 252 CSR related tweets during the study period, the top ranked companies put much more effort into emphasizing CSR, generating 478 CSR related tweets, which accounted for 93% of their total tweets. The bottom ranked companies, however, were more likely to produce CA related messages, generating 265 CA related t weets, 74.23% of their total tweets. Moreover, while the top ranked companies produced many more tweets mentioning CSR initiatives without mentioning CA, bottom ranked corporations were more likely to emphasize those two communication strategies in a balan ced manner, meaning the numbers of CA and CSR related tweets were closer and that more of the bottom ranked companies adopted the hybrid strategy of emphasizing both CSR and CA.
72 Corporations utilize different communication strategies to reach different r esults. CSR communication is especially important for top ranked corporations because publics pay more attention to their activities and how they impact soci e ty. Meanwhile, the ir prominence means their corporate abilities are already well known from media coverage Given needs and expectations, it is necessary for top ranked corporations to invest more i n CSR communication than i n CA communication. However, low er ranked companies corporate abilities are not much emphasized by the media, and the se companies genera lly face more intense competition their position being less secure For this reason CA communication is essential to low er ranked corporations, who should ideally balance their CSR and their CA communication to emphasize both their social responsibility and their ability. As regards communication tactics, top ranked corporations are more likely to use images, such as picture s, graphic s, or gif s (68.82%) in their CA communications than bottom ranked corporations are (50.57%). However, in th eir CA related tweets, the bottom ranked corporations used video s more (15.09%) than the top ranked corporations did This result indicates that the bottom ranked companies tend to utilize more vivid resources to demonstrate their corporate ability th an top ranked corporations do, since v ideo attachment s genera lly convey messages more vividly than pictures. The se differing uses of communication tactics confirm that low er ranked corporations invest more in CA communications. Stakeholder Engagement for D ifferent Communications Strategies This study also explored the success of different communication strategies, specifically how stakeholders reacted differently to CSR and to CA communications (Research Question 7). Analysis revealed that the top ranked co mpanies generated
73 much higher numbers of interactions with their CSR related tweets than with CA related tweets, while the bottom ranked companies generated nearly equal numbers of interactions with their CSR and their CA communications. Moreover, the bott om ranked while the top and likes, but only a small number of comments. More and more companies are uti lizing social media such as Twitter to communicate CSR and CA information with the public, so this study has important and interesting implications for corporations. First, corporations nearer the bottom of their sector can generate more stakeholder engage ment through CA communication, especially in the form of replies to tweets. Second, given that the bottom ranked uch as embedding more videos and posting more pictures to display their corporate abilities more vividly. Third, the top ranked corporations are more likely to emphasize CSR, which in turn generates good stakeholder engagement, indicating that top ranked c orporations generally should put more effort into emphasizing their CSR. It should be noted that this study has several weaknesses and should be replicated to understand more clearly the relationship between stakeholder engagement and CSR vs. CA tweets. First, the study while it selected 21 companies at the top the revenue range in the Fortune 1000 list and 21 companies at the bottom of that range, it from 1000 companie s is too small a sample of companies to make generalizations to
74 companies overall. While the number of tweets coded is large, and it may be safe to argue that these two weeks of tweets represent the tweets of these 42 companies, again a random sample of tw eets would allow for generalizations to tweets. Third, only two weeks were represented in this tweet data set and generalizing to all 52 weeks of these tweets is not possible. The major finding in this study that CSR tweets result in more engagement by rep lies, retweets and comments deserves to be examined further with a larger and more representative twitter data base. Moreover, some other factors, which can also affect the stakeholder engagement, should be further discuss ed and investigated. Despite the limitations, this study demonstrates important co r porate communication strategies, tactics, and their results on social media, and the implications are important for the scholars and practitioners.
75 APPENDIX CODING SHEET Number Variable Name Content Code 1 Account Name of the Twitter Account @AccountName 2 Group The company is top ranked or bottom ranked company 1 = top ranked company 2 = bottom ranked company 3 Tweet Content of the Tweet in Text Version Text 4 Date Date of the Posted Tweet MM/DD 5 Retweeted Retweeted Other's Tweet Message 1 = yes 0 = no 6 CSR sector 1 Organizational Governance 1 = yes 0 = no 7 CSR sector 2 Human Rights 1 = yes 0 = no 8 CSR sector 3 Labor Practices 1 = yes 0 = no 9 CSR sector 4 Fair Operating Practices 1 = yes 0 = no 10 CSR sector 5 Consumer Issues 1 = yes 0 = no 11 CSR sector 6 Environment 1 = yes 0 = no 12 CSR sector 7 Community Involvement and Development 1 = yes 0 = no 13 CSR sector 8 Other 1 = yes 0 = no 14 CA sector 1 Expertise in Product or Service Quality 1 = yes 0 = no 15 CA sector 2 Global Success 1 = yes 0 = no 16 CA sector 3 Implementation of Quality Control Program 1 = yes 0 = no 17 CA sector 4 Industry Leadership 1 = yes 0 = no 18 CA sector 5 Market Orientation 1 = yes 0 = no 19 CA sector 6 Innovation and R&D Efforts 1 = yes 0 = no
76 20 CA sector 7 Other 1 = yes 0 = no 21 Other Neither CSR nor CA issues 1 = yes 0 = no 22 Tactics Content Text 1 = yes 0 = no 23 Tactic Media Vividness 1 Emoji 1 = yes 0 = no 24 Tactics Media Vividness 2 Image 1 = yes 0 = no 25 Tactics Media Vividness 3 Video 1 = yes 0 = no 26 Tactics Internal Refere nce 1 Hashtag 1 = yes 0 = no 27 Tactics Internal Refere nce 2 Mention 1 = yes 0 = no 28 Tactics Internal Refere nce 3 Hyperlink 1 = yes 0 = no 29 Interaction 1 Amount of Replies from Stakeholders to the Tweet 000 999 30 Interaction 2 000 999 31 Interaction 3 000 999 32 Interaction 4 Amount of Replies from Official Account to Stakeholders 1 = yes 0 = no
77 REFERENCE LIST Amaeshi, K. & Crane, A. (2006) Stakeholder engagement: a mechanism for sustainable aviation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13, 245 260. Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2009). Corporate sustainability reporting: A study in disingenuity? Journal of Business Ethics 87(1), 279. Argenti, P.A., & Forman, J. (2002). The p ower of c orporate c ommunication : Crafting the v oice and i mage of y our b usiness New York NY : McGraw Hill Professional. Argenti, P. A., Howell R. A., & Beck K. A ( 2005 ) The strategic communication imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review 46 ( 3 ), 83. Baruah, T. D. (2012). Effectiveness of s ocial m edia as a tool of communication and its potential for technology enabled connections: A micro level study. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 2 (5), 1 10. Bendell, J. (2005). In whose name? The accountability of corporate social responsibility. Development in Practice 15 ( 3 4), 362 374. Bennett, S. (2014). 88% of companies are using social media for marketing Retrieved from: http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/social media companies/502447 Bendixen, M., & Abratt, R. (2007). Corporate identity, ethics and reputation in supplier buyer relationships. Jour nal of Business Ethics, 76 (1), 69 82. Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M ., & van Bruggen, G. H. V. (2005). Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance Journal of Marketing 69 (3), 35 48. Bernoff, J ., & Li, C. (2011). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies Harvard Business Press, Boston. Boutilier, R. G. (2007). Social capital in firm stakeholder networks: A corporate role in community development. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 26 121 134. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (12), 1325 1343. Brown, T. J. & Dacin, P. A. ( 1997 ) The company and the product: C orporate associations and consumer product responses Journal of M arketing, 9 (2), 68 8 4. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 32 (3) 946 967.
78 Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management R eview 4 (4), 497 505. Chang, H. H., & Rizal, H. (2011). The effects of corporate bran d dominance, involvement and corporate associations on attitudes towards new product development. African Journal of Business Management, 5 (15), 6397. Cornelius N, Todres M, Janjuha Jivraj S, Woods A, & Wallace J (2008). Corporate social respo nsibility and the social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics 81 (2), 355 370. Dess Gregory, G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Eisner Alan, B (2007). Strategic management : Creating competitive advantages New York: McGraw Hill. Dorfman, R., & Steiner, P. (1954). Optimal Advertising and Optimal Quality. The American Economic Review, 44 (5), 826 836. Edunov, S., Diuk, C., Filiz, I. O., Bhagat, S., & Burke, M. (2016, February 4). Three and a half degrees of separation. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from Facebook, https://research.facebook.com/blog/three and a half degrees of separation/ Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win win win business strategies f or sustainable development. California Management Review 36 (2), 90 100. Ellen, P. S ., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible p rograms Journal of the Academy of Marketin g Science, 34( 2), 147 157. Ferguson, R. (2008). Word of mouth and viral marketing: T aking the temperature of the hottest trends in marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25 (3), 179 182. Fischer, J. (2004). Social responsibility and ethics: C larifying t he concepts. Journal of Business Ethics, 52 (4), 381 390 Ghasemi, S., & Nejati, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: Opportunities, drivers, and barriers. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge 1 (1), 33 37. Graafland, J J (2006). Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 22 111 123. Grigorescu, A., & Lupu, M. M. (2015 ). Integrated communication as strategic c ommunication. Revista de Management Comparat International 16 (4 ), 479. Grigore, G., Theofilou, A., Watson, T., & Sthapitanonda, P. (2015). Ethical stakeholder engagement: Exploring the relationship between corporations and NGOs in Thailand, Romania, and the UK. PRism 12 (2), 1 12
79 Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Ma naging public relations (Vol. 343). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grunig, L. A. (1992) Strategic public relations constituencies on a global scale. Public Relations Review 18 (2) 127 136. Gould, W. R. (2012). Open innovation and stakeholder engagement. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 7( 3), 1 11. Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategi c C ommunication 1 (1), 3 35. Henriques, A. (2011). Understanding ISO 26000: a practical approach to social responsability Hill, S., Provost, F. & Volinsky, C. (2006). Network based marketing: Identifying likely adaptors via consumer n etworks. Statistical Science 21 (2), 256 276. Hosseinali Mirza, V., de Marcellis Warin, N., & Warin, T. (2015). Crisis Communication Strategies and Reputation Risk in the Online Social Media Environment International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6 (5), 7 21. Hsie h, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277 1288. Ihlen, ., Bartlett, J. L., & May, S. (2011 ). The handbook of communication and c orporate social responsibility. John Wiley & Sons. Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82 (1) 213 231. Johan, M. R. M., & Noor, A. Z. M (2013). The role of corporate communication i n Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 4 (12), 1230 1240 Jothi, P. S., Neelamalar, M.J., & Prasad, R.S. (2011). Analysis of social networking sties: A study o n effective communication strategy in developing brand communication Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 3 (7), 234 242. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24 (3), 321 334. Kibicho, P. M. (2015). Determinants of Strategy Implementation Success in the Insurance Industry: A Survey of Insurance Companies in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6( 4), 74 91
80 Kitchen, P. J., & Burgmann, I. (2015). Integrated marketing communication: M aking it work at a strategic level. Journal of Business Strategy 36 (4), 34 39 strategies: C orporate ability versus social responsibility. Journal of Communication Management 18 (4), 343 362. Kim, S., & Rader, S. (2010). What they can do versus how much they care: Assessing corporate communication strategies on Fortune 500 web sites. Journal of Communication Management 14 (1), 59 80. Knudsen, G. H., & Lemmergaard, G. (2014). Strategic serendipity: How one organization planned for and took advantage of unexpected communicative opportunities. Culture & Organization 20 (5), 392 409. Lurati, F., & Eppler, M. J. (2006). Communication and management Studies in Communication Sciences 6 (2), 75 98. Luoma aho, V. (2015). Understanding stakeholder engagement: F aith ho lder, hateholders & fakeholders. Research Journal of The Institute and Public Relations 2 (1) Madrigal, R. (2000). The role of corporate association in new product evaluation Advances in Consumer Research 27 ( 1 ) 80 6. Mainardes, W.E., Ferreira, J.J., & Raposo, M.L. (2014). Strategy and strategic management concepts: A re they re cognized by management students. E+ M Ekonomie a Management (1), 43 Marin L., & Ruiz S. (2007). I n eed y ou t oo! Corporate i dentity a ttractiveness for c onsumers and t he r ole of s ocial r esponsibility Journal of Business Ethics. 7 1 (3), 245 260 Mauroner, O., & Fauck, D. (2014). Social media in science marketing framewor k instruments and strategies. C ases from German research institutes Open Journal of Business and Management 2, 250 259. Mintzberg, H., & Quinn, J. B (19 88 ). The strategy process : Concepts, contexts and cases. London : Prentice Hall Missonier, S. & Loufrani Fedida, S. (2014). Stakeholder analysis and engagement in projects: From stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational ontology International Journal of Project Management, 32 (7) 1108 1122. Muiz, Jr, A. M. & Schau, H. J. (2007). Vigilante m arketing and c onsumer c reated c ommunications. Journal of Advertising 36 ( 3), 35 50
81 Navarro, P. (1988). Why Do Corporations Give to Charity? The Journal of Business, 61 (1), 65 93. Prez, A., del Mar Garca de los Salmones, M., & Rodrguez del Bosque, I. (2013). The effect of corporate associations on consumer behaviour. European Journal of Marketing 47 (1/2), 218 238. Piriyakul, M., & Wingwon, B. (2013). Effect of corporate ability and reputation on performance and CSR African Journal of Business Management 7 (9), 738 749 Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review 74 (6), 61 78. Post, J. E., Preston, L. E ., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Price, J. M., & Sun, W. (2017). Doing good and doing bad: The impact of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility on firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 80, 82 97. Rangan, K., Chase, L. A., & Karim, S. (2012). Why every company needs a CSR strategy and how to build it. Salimian, H., Khalili, S., Nazemi, J., & strategy window (concentration on business strategy and operations strategy) African Journal of Business Management 6 5 ( 1), 12016. Schaefer, M. (2013). Twitter leads Fortune 500 social media surge. Retrieved on 18th October 2016, from: http://www.businessesgrow.com/2013/07/11/twitter leads fortune 500 social media surge/ Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalization o f non profit business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2) 413 429. Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management 31 (6), 849 873. Sen, S., & Bh attacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of marketing Research, 38 (2), 225 243. Shen, L. X., Govindan, K., & Shankar, M. (2015). Evaluation of barriers of corporate social responsibility using an analytical hierarchy proces s under a fuzzy environment A textile case. Sustainability 7 (3) 3493 3514.
82 Slegg, J. (2013, July 25). Fortune 500 social media: 77% active on Twitter; 70% on Facebook. Retrieved from S earch Engine Watch, https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/study/2284930/fortune 500 social media 77 active on twitter 70 on facebook So cial Times. (2016). H and other big social networks. Retrieved from: http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/heres how many people are on facebook instagram twitter other big social networks/637205 Statista (n.d. ). Twitter: Number of monthly active users 2010 2016. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number of monthly active twitter users/ Stelzner, M. A. (2012, April). 2012 Social media marketing industry report: H ow marketers are using social media to grow their businesses. Retrieved from Social Media Examiner, https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/SocialMediaMarketingIndustryReport2012 .pdf Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications 14 (2), 113 124. Tebo, P. V. (2005). Building busi ness value through sustainable growth. Research Technology Management 48 (5), 28 32. Utting, P. (2005). Corporate responsibility and the movement of business. Development in Practice 1 5 (3 4), 375 388. Vis ser, W. (2008). The new era in c orporate sustainability and r esponsibility. CSR Inspiration Series (1). T., & Strasek, R. (2014). A study on effective communication strategy in developing brand communication: analys is of social networking site. Proceeding of The World Congress on Engi neering 1 690 693. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review 35 (2), 102 106. Wagner, K. (2014). L inkedin: 81% of small and medium sized businesses use social media. Retrieved from: http://mashable.com/2014/02/13/linkedin social media study/ nMZyoR.CDgq3 Werther Jr, W. B., & Chandler, D. (2005 ). Strategic corporate social responsibility in a global w orld Business Horizons 48 (4), 317 324.
83 Wright, C. & Page, C. H. (1959 ). Mass communication: A sociological perspective New York: Random House. Zerfa, A., & Huck, S. (2007). Innovation, communication, and leadership: New developments in strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication 1 (2), 107 122. Zwetsloot, G. I. (2003). From management systems to corporate social re sponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 44 (2), 201 208
84 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Qianyan Jiang was born in Beijing China. She maj ored in journalism and receiv ed her Bachelor of Arts in Mass Communication from Beijing Technology and Business University. Having an internship working experience in Ogivy Public Relations, she developed a curious mind as to with regards to public relations. Due to this s he joined the graduate program of the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florid a with specialization in public relations After graduation, she decides to become a communication professional and to apply her public relations knowledge into practice in Chin ese public relations industry