在两极分化的世界中承担责任:从对话型企业社会责任到党派型企业社会责任

IF 1.9 4区 管理学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Management Communication Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1177/08933189241254096
Gastone Gualtieri, Francesco Lurati
{"title":"在两极分化的世界中承担责任:从对话型企业社会责任到党派型企业社会责任","authors":"Gastone Gualtieri, Francesco Lurati","doi":"10.1177/08933189241254096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates how companies approach corporate social responsibility in polarized landscapes. Polarization makes the dominant dialogical approach to CSR potentially inconclusive. Indeed, companies cannot orient societal CSR meanings through an all-stakeholder-inclusive dialogue because, in a polarized world, stakeholders form alternative meanings in separate and mutually delegitimizing conversations. To understand how companies try to appear responsible under these circumstances, we examine Italian telecom companies’ CSR reports issued throughout the launch of 5G technologies, a polarizing topic that sparked fake news and conspiracy theories. The findings show that, in such polarizing circumstances, companies may adopt a partisan approach to CSR, i.e., engaging with only one conversation to shape CSR views within it while ignoring the other. Through this approach, companies may further exacerbate polarization and shape CSR meanings to align with their core business, rather than the opposite. These implications, we argue, might jeopardize the very essence of CSR.","PeriodicalId":47743,"journal":{"name":"Management Communication Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Being Responsible in a Polarized World: From Dialogical to Partisan CSR\",\"authors\":\"Gastone Gualtieri, Francesco Lurati\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08933189241254096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper investigates how companies approach corporate social responsibility in polarized landscapes. Polarization makes the dominant dialogical approach to CSR potentially inconclusive. Indeed, companies cannot orient societal CSR meanings through an all-stakeholder-inclusive dialogue because, in a polarized world, stakeholders form alternative meanings in separate and mutually delegitimizing conversations. To understand how companies try to appear responsible under these circumstances, we examine Italian telecom companies’ CSR reports issued throughout the launch of 5G technologies, a polarizing topic that sparked fake news and conspiracy theories. The findings show that, in such polarizing circumstances, companies may adopt a partisan approach to CSR, i.e., engaging with only one conversation to shape CSR views within it while ignoring the other. Through this approach, companies may further exacerbate polarization and shape CSR meanings to align with their core business, rather than the opposite. These implications, we argue, might jeopardize the very essence of CSR.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Management Communication Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Management Communication Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189241254096\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management Communication Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189241254096","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了企业如何在两极分化的环境中履行企业社会责任。两极分化使得企业社会责任的主流对话方式可能无法得出结论。事实上,企业无法通过包容所有利益相关者的对话来确定企业社会责任的社会意义,因为在一个两极分化的世界里,利益相关者在各自为政、相互否定的对话中形成了不同的意义。为了了解在这种情况下公司如何努力表现出负责任的态度,我们研究了意大利电信公司在 5G 技术发布期间发布的企业社会责任报告,5G 技术是一个引发假新闻和阴谋论的两极分化话题。研究结果表明,在这种两极分化的情况下,公司可能会采取一种偏袒性的企业社会责任方法,即只参与一种对话,在对话中形成企业社会责任观点,而忽略另一种对话。通过这种方法,企业可能会进一步加剧两极分化,使企业社会责任的含义与其核心业务相一致,而不是相反。我们认为,这些影响可能会危及企业社会责任的本质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Being Responsible in a Polarized World: From Dialogical to Partisan CSR
This paper investigates how companies approach corporate social responsibility in polarized landscapes. Polarization makes the dominant dialogical approach to CSR potentially inconclusive. Indeed, companies cannot orient societal CSR meanings through an all-stakeholder-inclusive dialogue because, in a polarized world, stakeholders form alternative meanings in separate and mutually delegitimizing conversations. To understand how companies try to appear responsible under these circumstances, we examine Italian telecom companies’ CSR reports issued throughout the launch of 5G technologies, a polarizing topic that sparked fake news and conspiracy theories. The findings show that, in such polarizing circumstances, companies may adopt a partisan approach to CSR, i.e., engaging with only one conversation to shape CSR views within it while ignoring the other. Through this approach, companies may further exacerbate polarization and shape CSR meanings to align with their core business, rather than the opposite. These implications, we argue, might jeopardize the very essence of CSR.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
16.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Management Communication Quarterly presents conceptually rigorous, empirically-driven, and practice-relevant research from across the organizational and management communication fields and has strong appeal across all disciplines concerned with organizational studies and the management sciences. Authors are encouraged to submit original theoretical and empirical manuscripts from a wide variety of methodological perspectives covering such areas as management, communication, organizational studies, organizational behavior and HRM, organizational theory and strategy, critical management studies, leadership, information systems, knowledge and innovation, globalization and international management, corporate communication, and cultural and intercultural studies.
期刊最新文献
Technical Anonymity and Employees’ Willingness to Speak Up: Influences of Voice Solicitation, General Timeliness, and Psychological Safety Affective Sensemaking of Relational Precarities: Resilience as Becoming in Pandemic Shifting to Remote Work CSR Communication and the Polarization of Public Discourses: Introduction to the Special Issue From Being to Doing: Exploring the Situated Discourses and Performances of Work Engagement Book Review: Organizational Paradox
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1