Nik Gurney Week 5

In researching for my 540 intro paper I came across an interesting article that addresses the sincerity-hypocrisy spectrum in CSR communication. Fassin and Buelens (2012) argue that there is a short circuit between the rhetoric surrounding CSR and its actual implementation. This establishes the need for a rating system to evaluate an organization’s actual performance in CSR versus the rhetoric surrounding it. They review the current state of CSR communication, give examples of rhetoric and outline a rating system to better evaluate the actual worth of an organization’s CSR activities. One example of CSR gone wrong they share is Phillip Morris spending $108 million to promote charitable contributions of $60 million (Fassin & Buelens, 2012, pp.592-593).   As I read about ambiguous communication I could not help but think what role does it play in CSR rhetoric? I am inclined to believe that Phillip Morris took every action it could to hide the fact it was spending more promoting its good deeds than actually doing them (and being as ambiguous as possible.) For Phillip Morris this was likely the best strategic communication practice feasible, and yet I suspect that the vast majority of people would find it reprehensible.

In their closing argument, Bonini, Mendonca and Oppenheim assert the approach they have argued will allow businesses to, “…shape the social contract and identify ways of creating value from the opportunities and risks arising from sociopolitical issues” (2006, p.31). While reading this article I kept getting the impression that the authors are suggesting the most important reason for an organization to take part in sociopolitical issues is financial, and I can see how an organization like Phillip Morris would take this to its logical, albeit morally questionable, end. If financial benefits are the real reason to pursue sociopolitical involvement then, at least from a rational perspective, Phillip Morris’ actions are justifiable and perhaps we all need to change our moral compass settings. Phillip Morris was engaging in the sociopolitical dialogue then “creating value” as Bonini et al. stated. I stand to disagree with this argument though, and I think Eisenberg would agree. He comments, “…the effectiveness and the ethics of any particular communicative strategy are relative to the goals and values of the communicators in the situation” (1984, p.239). Phillip Morris’ actions reflect a negative view of the communication consumers. Now I suppose that if this was never discovered the only damage done (and it is probably the worst case scenario, but that is another discussion…) would be the consumers putting too much faith in Phillip Morris as a social actor. Of course Phillip Morris was found out and their credibility was damaged. As Argenti, Howell and Beck point out credibility is very important to an organization, and has been lost for much of corporate America (2005) not just Phillip Morris. This is why a scale similar to what Fassin and Buelens prescribe is so valuable (2012). Before an organization chose to implement communication strategies, especially ambiguous ones, it would be in its best interest to run the rhetoric through an analysis to see possible interpretations and where each one lies on the sincerity-hypocrisy scale.

I am not arguing against Goodall, Trethewey and McDonald’s third principle (2006) and looking for control of the message, but rather suggesting we be more cognitive of the messages we could possibly convey. Of course this becomes more natural as the relationship is developed, just like they assert in the fourth principle.

I am not going to say I am perfect either—far from it—but for whatever reason the idea of being purposefully ambiguous seems detrimental to any relationship from a long term perspective and I strive to avoid it. It is analogous the husband telling his rotund wife she looks beautiful (not fat) in the new dress. It is lip service at best. I personally believe in being transparent in your communication, and should a situation arise where ambiguous communication seems necessary then it is time to seriously consider your position, maybe even reevaluate why you’re in business.

References

Argenti, P., Howell, R., Beck, K. (2005) The Strategic Communication Imperative, MIT Sloan Management Review, 46 #3, pp. 83-89 (full article)

Bonini, S. M. J., Mendonca, L., and Oppenheim, J. (2006) When Social Issues Become Strategic, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, pp. 19-31 (full article)

Fassin, Y., & Buelens, M. (2011). The hypocrisy-sincerity continuum in corporate communication and decision making: A model of corporate social responsibility and business ethics practices. Management Decision, 49(4), 586-600.

Goodall, B., Terthewey, A., and McDOnald, K. (2006) Strategic Ambiguity, Communication and Public Diplomacy in an Uncertain World: Principles and Practices,Consortium for Strategic Communication, pp. 1-14 (full article)

Eisenberg, E. (1984) Ambiguity As Strategy In Organizational Communication, Communication Monographs, 51, pp.227-242 (full article)