Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235320521

Strategicstakeholderdialogues:Adiscursiveperspectiveonrelationshipbuilding

ArticleinCorporateCommunicationsAnInternationalJournal·August2011

DOI:10.1108/13563281111156871

CITATIONS

39

READS

423

2authors:

Someoftheauthorsofthispublicationarealsoworkingontheserelatedprojects:

CONTEMPLATINGCORPORATEMARKETING,IDENTITYANDCOMMUNICATION:DrKlementPodnar&

ProfessorJohnM.T.BalmerViewproject

TrineSusanneJohansen

AarhusUniversity

15PUBLICATIONS95CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AnneEllerupNielsen

AarhusUniversity

93PUBLICATIONS437CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyAnneEllerupNielsenon30November2016.

Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

Corporate Communications: An International JournalEmerald Article: Strategic stakeholder dialogues: a discursive perspective on relationship buildingTrine Susanne Johansen, Anne Ellerup Nielsen

Article information:To cite this document: Trine Susanne Johansen, Anne Ellerup Nielsen, (2011),"Strategic stakeholder dialogues: a discursive perspective on relationship building", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss: 3 pp. 204 - 217

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281111156871

Downloaded on: 04-07-2012

References: This document contains references to 51 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

This document has been downloaded 896 times since 2011. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *Helle Kryger Aggerholm, Sophie Esmann Andersen, Christa Thomsen, (2011),"Conceptualising employer branding in sustainable organisations", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss: 2 pp. 105 - 123http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281111141642

James DeLisle, Terry Grissom, (2011),"Valuation procedure and cycles: an emphasis on down markets", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 384 - 427http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150312

David Wyman, Maury Seldin, Elaine Worzala, (2011),"A new paradigm for real estate valuation?", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 341 - 358http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150286

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Strategic stakeholder dialogues:a discursive perspectiveon relationship building

Trine Susanne Johansen and Anne Ellerup NielsenBusiness Communication, Business and Social Science,

Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

AbstractPurpose – Societal developments and stakeholder awareness place responsibility and legitimacyhigh on corporate agendas. Increased awareness heightens focus on stakeholder relations and dialogueas key aspects in corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate identity and corporatecommunication scholarship, but the question remains how can dialogue be initiated andmaintained? The purpose of this paper is to establish a framework for conceptualizing dialogue.

Design/methodology/approach – Through a review of CSR, corporate identity, corporatecommunication and stakeholder literature, a framework is developed taking into account thedifferent stakes held by key stakeholder groups, i.e. consumers, investors, employees,non-governmental organization and suppliers. Based on the discursive terms of form and script,we argue that different stakes condition different dialogical types.

Findings – The paper argues that the stakeholder orientations of the CSR, corporate identity andcorporate communication disciplines can aid in strengthening dialogue. It is thus suggested thatdialogue may be strengthened by constructing a framework which links the stakes held by keystakeholder groups to specific dialogue forms and scripts.

Practical implications – The practical implication of articulating stakeholder dialogue as scriptedinteraction is that organizations seeking to engage stakeholders strategically must understand andrespect conventions and expectations.

Originality/value – The paper’s contribution is to expand the notion of dialogue withincommunication research and to provide organizations with a framework for understandingstakeholder involvement in identity relevant issues of responsibility and legitimacy.

Keywords Stakeholder relations, Social responsibility, Corporate communications, Corporate identity,Dialogue, Non-governmental organizations

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionSocietal developments and increasing stakeholder awareness have placedaccountability and responsibility high on corporate agendas emphasizing the abilityof corporations to secure their licenses to operate. As corporations have to act in newways in order to deal with pressures brought on by different social, environmental andeconomic issues, e.g. climate change, sustainability and financial scandals, corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) has begun to inform other disciplines such as corporatestrategy (Lamberti and Lettieri, 2009), corporate marketing (Podnar and Golob, 2007)and corporate communication (Cornelissen, 2008; van Riel and Fombrun, 2007).Responsibility, legitimacy and corporate citizenship have also taken up a centralposition within recent research on corporate identity (Balmer et al., 2007; Roland andBazzoni, 2009) while studies have shown that CSR has become a key driver whenmeasuring corporate reputation (Morsing et al., 2008a). Simultaneously, European

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

CCIJ16,3

204

Received November 2010Revised November 2010Accepted April 2011

Corporate Communications: AnInternational JournalVol. 16 No. 3, 2011pp. 204-217q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1356-3289DOI 10.1108/13563281111156871

companies have experienced amove away from state regulation towards a higher degreeof self-regulation and delegation of responsibility to organizations themselves(European Commission, 2001). The move towards greater self-regulation has meant ashift in relation to how corporations communicate CSR activities from implicit to moreexplicit forms of communication. CSR is consequently becoming a significant aspect ofcorporate communication, corporate identity and reputationmanagement (Balmer et al.,2007; Cornelissen, 2008; Nielsen and Thomsen, 2009). Therefore, organizations have torespond strategically to increased awareness and concerns. The questions raised bysocietal developments and stakeholder awareness are similar when viewed from withinCSR, corporate identity and corporate communication perspectives: how can anorganization be recognized as a legitimate corporate citizen? What does it mean to actresponsibly? How should an organization communicate when addressing its ownaccountability? In addition, the perspectives are in agreement in terms of where thepotential answer to such questions lies namely in increased stakeholder adaptation orenabling though strategic relationship building and dialogue (Balmer et al., 2007;Cornelissen, 2008; Nielsen and Thomsen, 2009). This sentiment resonates well withdevelopments within communication research where a transmission view oncommunication, i.e. communication as an instrument which transports informationfrom corporation to constituents – is overruled by more interactive or dialogicalapproaches (Heath, 1994; Hubner, 2007; Christensen et al., 2008). The dialogicalapproaches emphasize the role of communication in the negotiation of meaning betweencorporations and constituents (Heath, 1994; Hubner, 2007; Christensen et al., 2008).Dialogue, consequently, refers to two-way communication processes where conflictinginterests and concerns are addressed (Foster and Jonker, 2005, p. 51).

The paper argues that focal overlaps with regards to the stakeholder orientations ofCSR, corporate identity and corporate communication research can potentially aid inhandling the legitimacy challenges faced by organizations by strengthening relationshipbuilding through dialogue. Stakeholder dialogue is introduced as a key aspect in CSR,corporate identity and corporate communication research, but the question remains howdialogue can be initiated and maintained? In order to address this question, we suggestthat a deeper understanding is needed in relation to the form dialogue with differentstakeholders takes as well as how such dialogue is scripted. Seeking to provide aprovisional answer, we begin with a brief outline of the stakeholder perspective whichframes our approach. Second, we tentatively identify how key stakeholder groups, andthe varying stakes they hold, are addressed within the disciplines of CSR, corporateidentity and corporate communication. Third, with the aid of discourse theory,we discuss how to understand and explore stakeholder dialogue. The exploration iscarried out with reference to dialogue forms and scripts identified in relation to thedifferent stakes and interests held by stakeholders. The proposed framework isillustrated by a corporation-consumer dialogue that demonstrates implications ofutilizing forms and scripts as explorative tools. The framework thus acts as a theoreticallens for understanding dialogue in practice. Finally, we tentatively discuss the widerstrategic implications of framing stakeholder dialogue as scripted interaction.

The stakeholder approachThe stakeholder approach to understanding organizations in their environments haspaved the way for a broader perception of organizational roles and responsibilities

Strategicstakeholderdialogues

205

beyond profit maximization as compared to the traditional shareholder perspective(Foster and Jonker, 2005). An organization is defined in terms of the grouping ofstakeholders in which it is immersed. Its mission is hence not solely to provide benefits,i.e. profits – for shareholders and owners but rather to integrate interests and claimsfrom other stakeholder groups into the strategic management of the business(Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 853; Friedman and Miles, 2006, p. 1). Since the mid-1980s, thestakeholder concept has grown in popularity, not only in academic circles, but alsoamong policymakers, regulators, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), businessesand themedia. However, despite its widespread usage, the concept is not clearly defined.It is multiple and fluid covering a broad spectrum of interests, meanings and schools ofthought ranging frompolitical economy to institutional andmanagement theory. Fromaphilosophical point of view, stakeholding represents a general sense of social inclusionin a community where every citizen is a valued member who contributes and benefits.From a participatory perspective, stakeholding assumes active participation inprocesses of accountability; and in a financial understanding, material interests in thewell-being of a corporation are what legitimates such participation (Clarke, 1997, p. 211).

Freeman (1984, p. 52) originally defined stakeholders as “groups and individualswho can affect, or are affected by the achievement of an organization’s mission”.Generic stakeholder groups include customers, consumers, NGOs, employees, unions,competitors, suppliers, governments and investors. Stakeholder management refers tothe necessity of an organization to manage its relationship with stakeholder groups onan action-oriented basis (Freeman, 2005, p. 122). Since Freeman’s introduction ofstakeholder theory, a postmodern or constructionist approach has replaced the idea of“stakeholder management” with that of “stakeholder enabling”. The shift indicates amove from a static, instrumental perception of stakeholders as groups who can be“managed” towards a notion of stakeholders as groups involved in dynamic interactionwith post-bureaucratic, networked organizations (Calton and Kurland, 1995; Friedmanand Miles, 2006). Contained in the idea of “stakeholder enabling” is an increased focuson establishing and maintaining mutually beneficial dialogues where theorganizational license to operate can be established or negotiated.

Legitimacy and accountability are thus crucial to the stakeholder perspective.Stakeholders expect corporations to earn their licenses to operate by paying back tosociety and by taking on responsibility for solving societal problems. As legitimacybecomes an increasingly salient issue, traditional CSR topics such as employee andenvironmental policies also speak to the identity of a corporation. The stakeholderapproach implies that different stakeholders, once identified,must be addressed in relationto the stake(s) they hold and that communicationmust be adjusted to these stake(s) as theydetermine stakeholder interest in certain aspects of the company (Cornelissen, 2008, p. 49)including its CSR activities and corporate identity. In addition, the emphasis rewarded tostakeholder enabling suggests traditional unidirectional means of stakeholdercommunication must be replaced or replenished by two-way communication.

Stakeholders within CSR, corporate identity and corporate communicationIn this section, we introduce our understanding of CSR, corporate identity andcorporate communication and outline how the perspectives introduce and articulate thestakes and interests held by various stakeholders. The outline helps to establish wherepotential overlaps exist in relation to the stakeholder orientations of the disciplines.

CCIJ16,3

206

The review seeks to identify first which stakeholder groups are addressed and secondwhich stakes are highlighted in relation to the groups[1].

Corporate social responsibilityCSR is basically about businesses’ good deeds in society. It embraces issues rangingfrom legal compliance, philanthropy and community investment to environmentalmanagement, sustainability, animal rights, human rights, workers’ rights and welfare,market relations, corruption and corporate governance (Blowfield and Murray, 2008).However, there is no general consensus on what CSR is or what it entails. Within aEuropean framework, CSR is defined as corporate social initiatives that are voluntaryand beyond regulation. It is framed in relation to both internal and external subareassuch as recruitment and retention, health and security on the working place, changemanagement, work environment, stakeholders in local communities plus suppliers,customers and others, human rights and global environmental considerations(European Commission, 2001). Following the EU agenda, it seems that CSR cannot beisolated from the stakeholder perspective as generally supported by CSR scholarship(Wood, 1991; Papasolomou-Doukakis et al., 2005; Jamali, 2008).

CSR communication is considered a question of businesses’ capacity to respondto social pressure rather than a mere obligation to work for social betterment(Vallentin, 2006). In this sense, CSR is conceptualized as corporate social responsiveness(Frederick, 1978). The notion of responsiveness places stakeholder dialogue in a centralposition. If managers are required to adapt their businesses to the social environment bypracticing corporate policies that are responsive to the public (Vallentin, 2006), they canbe expected to enter into dialogue with stakeholders. Inspired by Grunig and Hunt’s(1984) model of public relations, Morsing and Schultz (2006) establish a framework forCSR communication. They argue that stakeholders can be approached usingcommunication strategies that take into account the contextual and dynamic featuresof specific communicative frames. The stakeholder information strategy (one-waycommunication) is practiced when organizations want to transmit factual informationabout their business to stakeholders with the aim of informing as objectively as possibleabout organizational issues (Morsing and Schultz, 2006, p. 142). The stakeholderresponse strategy (two-way asymmetrical communication) is practiced whenorganizations try to engage stakeholders in actions and decision making with the aimof obtaining external endorsement through market surveys, opinion polls and the like(Morsing and Schultz, 2006, p. 143). And, the stakeholder involvement strategy(two-way symmetrical communication) is practiced to achieve dialogue withstakeholders. The idea behind the involvement strategy is that organizations shouldnot only try to influence their stakeholders, they should also learn from them. Learning isa matter of taking in stakeholder advice and putting it into practice “in order to exploremutually beneficial action – assuming that both parties involved in the dialogue arewilling to change” (Morsing and Schultz, 2006, p. 145). While the information andresponse strategies are sender oriented and view stakeholders as passive receivers, theinvolvement strategy invites stakeholders to become active participants. However,stakeholder involvement in CSR issues differs based on the nature of the stakes held byspecific stakeholder groups. Consequently, focus now turns to the key stakeholdersaddressed within CSR scholarship, i.e. NGOs, consumers, investors, suppliers andemployees.

Strategicstakeholderdialogues

207

The role of NGOs is to protect society from corporations doing harm. Their interest inengaging in dialogue with corporations ranges from influencing business practices,representing their organization and members’ interests, retaining legitimacy andoperability, to gaining a better understanding of different sides of the debate in order toachieve outcomes that can only be reached by working in partnerships with privatecorporations (Burchell and Cook, 2008, p. 39). However, NGOs may fear that theirinvolvement with businesses will give legitimacy to businesses’ CSR agendas andendorse their products (Burchell and Cook, 2008, p. 39). Consumers’ interest in CSR lieswith their need for socially committed organizations to support their own consumptionpatterns. Thismechanism is based on consumers’ need to legitimize their own identity associally conscious constituents (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Handelman, 2006). Throughbrand preference, choice and consumption, consumers create meaning and try to defineor strengthen their identities as socially responsible consumers (Belk, 1988; McCracken,1986; Andersen and Nielsen, 2009). Investors’ stake is related to risk minimization. Thestock market’s reaction to bad management and corporate governance practicesfollowing business crises and scandals can often be risky business for investors, theEnron scandal being a case in point (Maak, 2008). Suppliers have to live up to theircustomers’ claims and expectations in order to keep their business profits. Consequently,they have to present themselves as attractive and innovative market actors by adoptingcorporate branding, strategic communication and reputation instruments from largecorporations (Morsing et al., 2008b). Employees have an interest in keeping their jobs,but also increasingly, in having a safe and healthywork environment that allows them todevelop and construct their identities and to express themselves in meaningful waysthrough their work. It is also of great importance that employees have a close andrelevant relationship to their organizations in order to act as good ambassadors in theenvironment (Christensen et al., 2008, p. 72). The different interests of the stakeholderssuggest adapted communication.

Corporate identity and corporate communicationCorporate identity and corporate communication are defined in multiple ways(Cornelissen andHarris, 2001;Alessandri, 2001;Hubner, 2007; Balmer, 2008). In addition,differing understandings of the relationship between identity and communication havebeen articulated. Oftentimes, corporate identity is either conceptualized as expressionsof organizational traits to be discovered and subsequently communicated or as designedin communication, i.e. as equal to corporate symbols and messages (Johansen, 2010).In this paper, corporate identity is understood as “the way in which an organization’sidentity is revealed through behavior, communications, as well as through symbolismto internal and external audiences” (van Riel and Balmer, 1997, p. 341). Defined as acompany’s self-presentation, i.e. as articulated in corporate communication, corporateidentity is ascribed a boundary-spanning role between the company and itssurroundings (Christensen et al., 2008). As such, it is regarded as an importantstrategic resource in relation to ensuring that a corporation is perceived as credibleand legitimate by its stakeholders (Melewar, 2003, p. 195). Corporate identity holds acentral position in corporate communication literature concerned with thestrategic, integrated communication applied by an organization with the purposeof creating and maintaining relationships with numerous stakeholders(Cornelissen, 2008).

CCIJ16,3

208

Corporate identity is said to foster positive reputations and favorable stakeholderrelations. However, the potential benefits attributed to identity in relation tocommunicating, creating and maintaining stakeholder relations are often specifiedaccording to the particular nature of the stake that a given stakeholder or group ofstakeholders has in a company (Melewar et al., 2005). Investors and shareholders areinterested in information relating to strategy and operations (Cornelissen, 2008, p. 49)as the stake they hold is financial. Customers and consumers favor identity elementsrelated to the distinctiveness, quality and desirability of products and services(Cornelissen, 2008, p. 49) often expressed in brand promises as consumers express theirown identities through branded identities. Suppliers are more likely to stay loyal andhave confidence in the company when they recognize and value the identity of theircustomer (van Riel, 1995, p. 29). Employees are said to become motivated and satisfiedwith their jobs as they come to understand the purpose, direction and focus of theircompany (Melewar, 2003, p. 195). In addition, corporate identity can create andmaintain identification by promoting a “we-feeling” amongst employees leading tohigher loyalty and commitment (van Riel, 1995, p. 29). Consequently, a corporationis faced with many different, and perhaps conflicting, aspects of its identity whenaddressing each stakeholder group. Addressing different stakeholders may require theorganization to speak with multiple voices, i.e. to employ polyphonic communication(Christensen et al., 2008). Polyphonic communication is said to allow corporate mobilityand flexibility in self-presentation by embracing societal complexities and varyingstakeholder interests (Christensen et al., 2008). However, at the same time, corporationsare warned against sending inconsistent or incoherent identity signals as conflictingmessages may jeopardize their credibility (van Riel, 1995). Communicating corporateidentity thus becomes a question of balancing stakeholder responsiveness andadaptation with a sense of unity and stability.

Corporate identity plays different roles in different stakeholder relations reflectingthe different interests and stakes held by various groups. These differences becomemanifested in polyphonic communication as companies are encouraged to enter intodialogue with multiple stakeholder groups based on the nature of their specific stakesarticulating those aspects of their identity relevant to each group. However, withinexisting identity and communication literature little emphasis is given to how suchstakeholder-oriented dialogue is to be established and maintained. Below we suggestthat successful stakeholder dialogue is determined by a corporation’s ability tounderstand specific stakeholder interests and that these interests can be exploredthrough dialogue forms and scripts.

Stakeholder dialogue: stakes, forms and scriptsHaving outlined CSR, corporate identity and corporate communication with reference tothe stakeholder perspective, the disciplines inform a framework for conceptualizingdialogue forms and scripts as determined by specific stakeholder interests. The intentionis not to suggest integrating CSR, corporate identity and corporate communication intoone another as, e.g. ethical identity; a notion discussed and rejected by Balmer et al.(2007), but rather that similar solutions might be sought when seeking to understandstakeholder dialogue. As addressed earlier, stakeholder dialogue is an importantelement of strategic communication (Morsing and Schultz, 2006; Cornelissen, 2008).Strategic communication is defined as “the purposeful use of communication by an

Strategicstakeholderdialogues

209

organization to fulfill its mission” (Hallahan et al., 2005, p. 3). In continuation hereof,strategic dialogue is defined as the purposeful use of two-way communication by anorganization to fulfill its mission, i.e. to obtain and maintain its license to operate.We propose to use specific stakes to sketch out dialogue forms and scripts in relation toselect stakeholders as an important step in exploring and explicating an approach forstrategic stakeholder dialogue. Form refers to the type of interaction embedded in thedialogue whereas script refers to a set of discursive conventions and rules. Thedesignated forms are inspired by some of the primary channels used to communicatewith the stakeholder groups in question. Primary channels refer to the main pointsof contact where dialogue is initiated and maintained. Consequently, form does notinclude channels used in one-way communication.

Initially, script was defined within cognitive theory asmental representations of howthe sense of events, persons, their mental states and the causality of their activities isconstructed (Schank and Abelson, 1977). However, during the 1990s researchers withindiscourse theory framed script as “script talk”, pointing out that scripted activities arenot perceptual, mental or real. As they construct events through naming and narrating,scripts are discursive rather thanmental and the focus becomes the study of how peopleconstruct activities as routine or anomalous (Edwards, 1997, p. 143). Moreover, scripttheory has loosened its ties from individual towards a socially situated cognitioncontext, arguing that cognition is often distributed, implemented by more than oneindividual, as dyads, groups or other types of thought communities (Zerubavel andSmith, 2010, p. 325). This conceptualization supports our understanding wherestakeholders, through their generic roles in relation to an organization, take particulardialogue positions and utilize sets of pre-established discourse pattern when theyengage with the organization. Scripts are invoked in many aspects of our daily andorganizational lives, e.g. when ordering a meal in a restaurant and conducting orparticipating in a job interview. Routine communication in organizations, e.g. jobinterviews, is usually highly scripted as the appropriate script is leaned throughsocialization as well as training (Heath, 1994). It is our contention that scripts are usefulin conceptualizing stakeholder dialogues when dealing with organizational legitimacy.In Table I, we map out the key words that characterize the dialogue forms and scriptsassociated with select stakeholder groups. The stakes and interests included in themodel are inspired by those identified previously and the forms and scripts are derivedfrom them.

Stakeholders Stake/interest Dialogue form Dialogue script

Consumers Seek quality, license to consume anddistinctiveness

Networking Experience and engagement

Investors Seek pay-off, risk minimization andresponsible investment

Mutual briefing Ensuring and balancing(finance and ethics)

Employees Seek identification, safety and jobsatisfaction

Involvement Sense making and culturalenactment

NGOs Seek influence, control, awarenessand legitimacy

Negotiation Compromising and partnering

Suppliers Seek commitment, long-lastingrelationships and inclusion

Exchange Knowledge sharing and(mutual) learning

Table I.Stakes, forms and scripts

CCIJ16,3

210

The framework rests on the premise that the form and script characteristic of stakeholderdialogue is conditioned on the nature of the stakes held by different stakeholder groups.The stakes and interests are linked to particular roles assigned to stakeholders qua theirgeneric relationship to an organization as consumers, investors, employees, NGOs andsuppliers.When a person consumes a corporation’s products, he becomes a consumer. If heworks for a corporation, he becomes an employee, etc. Particular scripts or discoursepatterns are constructed from these roles and activated once the representatives of theseroles enter into dialogue with the corporation. The scripts represent broad categoriesadapted to the generic stakes of the stakeholder groups. As consumers seek quality, licenseto consume as well as distinctiveness, they enter into dialogue with organizations in orderto establish their legitimacy as socially responsible consumers. They typically engagewithorganizations through social media networks. The networking form is inspired byplatforms and fora where communities can meet and interact, e.g. Facebook and Twitter.Networking refers to processes of establishing and maintaining networks, i.e. dynamic,non-hierarchical arrangements of mutually dependent actors (Kilduff and Tsai, 2003).According to Arvidsson, participating in community networks exemplifies how socialcapital is createdbyallowingparticipants to increase their standingand togain respect andrecognition from peers (Arvidsson, 2008; Arvidsson and Peitersen, 2008). The script ofexperience and engagement is articulated as a set of discursive conventions established at atime where corporations as well as consumers are empowered and have a say in how themarket is constructed and regulated. Consumers’ interest in anddialoguewith corporationsare a result of their increasing claim for gaining influence, engagement and co-creation inregards tomarket innovation andpractices (Prahalad andRamaswamy, 2004). Consumers’“license to consume” is something theygainwith the influence, engagement and experienceresulting from co-creating value with corporations (quality claims, suggestions for orcritique concerning products, brands, social or market innovation, governance andmanagement practices, etc.). Consumers also construct or manage their identity throughdemonstrating that they distance themselves from or support corporate issues. Likewise,investors who invest in a socially responsible corporation aim to obtain maximum profitswith a minimum of financial risk in the hope of gaining benefits for themselves as well asfor a societal cause. While the dialogue with the corporation concerns the issue andstructuring of how to balance financial and social capital through ethical investment, theform embodies channels capable of transfering information on the financial and socialdispositions of the corporation and the investor, respectively. Consequently, the dialogueform that is activated for the investor is “mutual briefing”.

Similar arguments can be developed for the other stakeholder groups. However, it isimportant to note that no form or script is likely to exist as absolute types. Rather they aregeneric types that are potentially useful in exploring and understanding differentcorporation-stakeholder relations. In order to develop our argument and discuss potentialimplications, an example is included below referencing the Danish/Swedish cooperativedairy Arla Foods and their relations with Danish consumers. The example illustratesimplications of applying the framework as a theoretical lens for understanding scriptedinteraction.Asingle example is given inorder to offer indepth insight into the implications.

Arla Foods-consumer dialogueOrganizations engage in consumer dialogue using a variety of channels, e.g. corporateblogs and social media inspiring networking as a consumer “dialogue form” as is the

Strategicstakeholderdialogues

211

case with Arla Forum. In order to strengthen relationships with Danish consumers,Arla Forum was established as a portal for handling all consumer communicationthrough web logs, phone, post and e-mail correspondence (published as questions andanswers on the company web site). The forum allows or invites consumer responses toissues pertaining to the cooperative, its strategies, policies, marketing practices andproducts. The portal rests on the idea that consumers, and other stakeholders, relate toand engage with organizations. Accepting an organizational invitation is motivatedby consumers’ desires to publicly stage their concern for corporate issues and behaviors.However, both organization and consumer need each other’s feedback, acknowledgmentand recognition in order to establish themselves as legitimate actors. The “dialoguescript” of engagement conceptualizes such mutual commitment.

The engagement script articulates conventions for company-consumer dialogueexemplified by the following e-mail correspondence between a consumer voicing herskepticism about plastic screw tops on milk cartons and the response given by acompany representative:

Consumer: If Arla really want to be green and closer to nature, why don’t they drop the screwtop on Lærkevang?[2] The dairies use much more energy when they provide their milk withscrew tops. Plastic is harmful to the environment and the production of the screw tops haveseveral damaging effects on the environment. All things considered, Lærkevang is not veryclose to nature but directly harmful.

Representative: Thanks for your e-mail. You are right that we could omit the screw top onLærkevangw in relation to getting closer to nature. We have chosen to keep the screw top onLærkevangw milk because many of our consumers are really happy with the screw top andbecause it results in better hygiene and shelf-life [. . .] Instead, we have tried to optimize otheraspects in our company. Including milk distribution, e.g. reducing the speed of our truckswhich can go at a maximum speed of 85 km/h on the freeway instead of 90 km/h. Regardingthe carton, we have begun using a more environmentally friendly carton which you can readabout here: Environmentally friendly milk carton. I hope that it has given you a greaterunderstanding of our choice[3].

The consumer not only demonstrates her attitude to environmental issues, stagingherself as caring about energy consumption and sustainable behavior; she also investsher interest in Arla, encouraging the company to adapt its product (Lærkevang) toexpected environmental stands articulated with reference to the company pay-off“Closer to Nature”. Staging, thus, is one goal embedded in the company-consumerdialogue script, both for the initiator (the consumer) and for the respondent (the companyrepresentative) staged as open-minded and accommodating (“thanks for your email”),willing to hear the voice of consumers (“many of our consumers are really happywith [. . .]”) and adapting to or refuting recommendations and suggestions (“you are rightthat [. . .] Instead, we have tried [. . .]”). Another characteristic of the script is linked totwofold acceptance and recognition by:

. the corresponding counterparts (consumer and representative); and by

. the online community, i.e. those who participate as readers (audiences) and/orwriters onArlaForumand thus “judge” the correspondents’ ability to communicate.

This script element is not explicit in the correspondence above, but the respondent’sclosing phrase (“I hope it has given you a greater understanding [. . .]”) can be considered

CCIJ16,3

212

an appeal for recognition serving to legitimize Arla’s stand on the critique raised by theconsumer. Obtaining recognition by the counterpart and the community is a typicalmeans of legitimizing one’s identity, individual as well as corporate. Finally, the scriptarticulates an invitation to engage by staying in the relationship. This is particularlysignificant in the sequence introduced by Arla starting with agreement: “You are right”followed by a series of refutations, e.g. “We have chosen to keep [. . .]”, “Including milkdistribution [. . .]” and “Regarding the carton [. . .]”. The long sequence stresses a desire tokeep the consumer on the site, providing arguments for the company position whileinviting the consumer to reply and to continue the relationship by clicking on thesupplied link: Environmentally friendly milk carton. Ongoing dialogue is encouragedas a means to proving that a relationship exists between the correspondents.

The company-consumer dialogue exemplifies questions and answers found on theArla Forum web site. Here consumers and corporation alike stage themselves and seekcredibility and legitimacy in both their joint and respective communities. Bothdemonstrate a common interest in business and society – albeit from differentperspectives and assuming different roles. The consumer stages herself as a reflexivecitizen and exposes her interest in supportingArla in “doing good” in the rightway. Arlastages itself as a good corporate citizen, demonstrating consumer responsiveness bylistening to consumer ideas and critical reactions to corporate actions or policies. Thescript is not aimed at economic goals, e.g. increasing sales or gaining new customers. Aspointed out by Arvidsson (2008), involving consumers in online corporate activities isbased on social, rather than financial, value creation – constructed throughexperimental engagement. The engagement script, here exemplified by a constructiveconsumer comment, is also visible in positive comments complimentingArla or negativecomments critiquing Arla, i.e. suggesting that the organization is entering into dialoguewith consumers in order to embellish its reputation. Consequently, staging, recognitionand staying in the relationship, i.e. the engagement script components – may bearticulated differently in different interactions.

Concluding remarks and implicationsThis paper set out to construct a framework that can aid in exploring and understandingstakeholder dialogue in relation to organizational issues of legitimacy and responsibility.The conclusions drawn from the provisional overview suggest the usefulness in drawingon and expanding the disciplinary overlaps found within CSR, corporate identity andcorporate communication. The overlaps may be utilized in developing a framework forconceptualizing stakeholder dialogue as scripted interaction. Such exploration is seen asthe first step in fostering the strategic application of dialogue. The framework suggeststhat since stakeholders belong to diverse interest communities, corporations ought tostrategically address diversity in relation to the communicative forms and scriptsapplied when entering into dialogue with individual stakeholder groups. Thus, it isimplied that the individual stakes condition the nature and features of the dialogue.In other words, corporations should be aware of discursive practices and conventionswithin the various stakeholder groups they address.

When viewed as scripted interactions, engaging in strategic dialogue is a questionof understanding the patterns characteristic of symmetric two-way communicationwith different stakeholder groups. Patterns express expectations and conventions fordialogue. The concept of script is particularly interesting because it captures the

Strategicstakeholderdialogues

213

settings of how generic agendas involved in corporation-stakeholder relationshipbuilding are unfolded in stakeholder dialogue. Dialogue is scripted to the extent thatthe discourses (action patterns and practices) that stakeholders evoke have turned intoconventionalized stereotypes and routines that are determined by the roles of thesestakeholders. The dialogue scripts are thus articulated through pre-establishedactivities, structures, framings or narrations that respond to stakeholder expectationsin particular situations in which their stakes are at stake.

In order to engage in fruitful interactions, the conventions embedded in theidentified dialogue scripts are to be honored. Consequently, it may be possible to couplenotions of polyphony with conventions. The notion of polyphony, i.e. speaking withmultiple voices, suggests that strategic stakeholder dialogue is a question ofunderstanding the different conventions that govern different interactions. It is aquestion of respecting the possibilities and restrictions embedded in each script.However, additional research into the theoretical foundations as well as the practicalimplications is needed in order to develop a complete and elaborate framework withrelevance for research and practice alike.

Notes

1. In identifying the stakeholders addressed within CSR, corporate identity and corporatecommunication scholarship, emphasis is given to groups mentioned most frequently.Consequently, not all generic stakeholders identified by Freeman (1984) are included.We acknowledge that other stakeholder groups are addressed by the disciplines in question,but have chosen initially to develop a framework that incorporates the most prominent.

2. Lærkevang is one of the milk brands marketed by Arla Foods.

3. Comment/answer posted on www.arla.dk/Arla-Forum, our translation.

References

Alessandri, S.W. (2001), “Modeling corporate identity: a concept explication and theoreticalexplication”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 61 No. 4,pp. 173-82.

Andersen, S.E. and Nielsen, A.E. (2009), “‘Stakeholder mapping’ the city”, Culture Unbound,Vol. 1, pp. 305-29, available at: www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se

Arvidsson, A. (2008), “The ethical economy of customer coproduction”, Journal ofMacromarketing, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 326-38.

Arvidsson, A. and Peitersen, N. (2008), The Ethical Economy (online version), Chapters 1 and 2,available at: www.ethicaleconomy.com/files/EthicalEconomy_CH1.pdf

Balmer, J.M.T. (2008), “Identity based views of the corporation: insights from corporate identity,organizational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity andcorporate image”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 9/10, pp. 879-906.

Balmer, J.M.T., Fukukaw, K. and Gray, E.R. (2007), “The nature and management of ethicalcorporate identity: a commentary on corporate identity, corporate social responsibility andethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 7, pp. 7-15.

Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possession and extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15,pp. 130-68.

Blowfield, M. and Murray, A. (2008), Corporate Responsibility: A Critical Introduction, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

CCIJ16,3

214

Burchell, J. and Cook, J. (2008), “Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: changingrelationships between companies and NGOs”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 17No. 1, pp. 35-46.

Calton, J.M. and Kurland, N.B. (1995), “A theory of stakeholder enabling: giving voice to anemerging postmodern praxis of organizational discourse”, in Boje, D.M., Gephart, R.P. andThatchenkery, T.J. (Eds), Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, Sage,London, pp. 154-77.

Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M. and Cheney, G. (2008), Corporate Communications: Convention,Complexity, and Critique, Sage, London.

Clarke, T. (1997), “Measuring and managing stakeholder relations”, Journal of CommunicationManagement, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 211-21.

Cornelissen, J. (2008), Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice, Sage, London.

Cornelissen, J. and Harris, P. (2001), “The corporate identity metaphor: perspectives, problemsand prospects”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17, pp. 59-71.

Edwards, D. (1997), Discourse and Cognition, Sage, London.

European Commission (2001), Promoting a European Framework for Corporate SocialResponsibility, Green Paper, European Commission, Bruxelles.

Foster, D. and Jonker, J. (2005), “Stakeholder relationships: the dialogue of engagement”,Corporate Governance, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 51-7.

Frederick, W.C. (1978), Corporation Be Good! The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility,Dog Ear Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.

Freeman, R.E. (2005), “Stakeholder management: framework and philosophy”, in Brønn, P.S. andBerg, R.W. (Eds), Corporate Communication – A Strategic Approach to BuildingReputation, 2nd ed., Gyldendal Akademisk, Oslo, pp. 121-48.

Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2006), Stakeholders: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T. (1984), Managing Public Relations, Hartcourt Brace Javanovich CollegePublishers, Fort Worth, TX.

Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Vercic, D. and Sriramesh, K. (2005), “Definingstrategic communication”, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 1 No. 1,pp. 3-35.

Handelman, J.M. (2006), “Corporate identity and the societal constituent”, Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 107-14.

Heath, R.L. (1994), Management of Corporate Communication: From Interpersonal Contacts toExternal Affairs, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.

Hubner, H. (2007), The Communicating Company: Towards an Alternative Theory of CorporateCommunication, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.

Jamali, D. (2008), “Social responsibility: a fresh perspective into theory and practice”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 82, pp. 213-31.

Johansen, T.S. (2010), Transported Essence or Collaborative Telling: Towards a NarrativeVocabulary of Corporate Identity, published in the ASB PhD thesis series, AarhusUniversity, Aarhus.

Kilduff, M. and Tsai, W. (2003), Social Networks and Organisations, Sage, London.

Lamberti, L. and Lettieri, M. (2009), “CSR practices and corporate strategy: evidence from alongitudinal case study”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 153-68.

Strategicstakeholderdialogues

215

McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13,pp. 71-84.

Maak, T. (2008), “Undivided corporate responsibility: towards a theory of corporate integrity”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82, pp. 353-68.

Melewar, T.C. (2003), “Determinants of the corporate identity construct: an overview of theliterature”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 195-220.

Melewar, T.C., Karaosmanoglu, E. and Paterson, D. (2005), “Corporate identity:concept, components and contribution”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 31 No. 1,pp. 59-81.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B. and Wood, D. (1997), “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification andsalience: defining the principle of who and what really counts”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-86.

Morsing, M. and Schultz, M. (2006), “Stakeholder communication strategies”, in Morsing, M. andBeckman, S.C. (Eds), Strategic CSR Communication, DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen,pp. 135-60.

Morsing, M., Schultz, M. and Nielsen, K. (2008a), “The ‘Catch 22’ of communicating CSR:findings from a Danish study”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 97-111.

Morsing, M., Vallentin, S. and Hildebrandt, S. (2008b) in Morsing, M., Vallentin, S. andHildebrandt, S. (Eds), Forretning eller ansvar? – social ansvarlighed i sma og mellemstorevirksomheder (Business or Responsibility? – Social Responsibility in Small andMedium-Sized Enterprizes), Børsens Forlag, Copenhagen.

Nielsen, A.E. and Thomsen, C. (2009), “Investigating CSR communication in SMEs: a case studyamong Danish middle managers”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 18 No. 1,pp. 83-93.

Papasolomou-Doukakis, I., Krambia-Kapardis, M. and Katsioloudes, M. (2005), “Corporate socialresponsibility: the way forward? Maybe not!”, European Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 3,pp. 263-79.

Podnar, K. and Golob, U. (2007), “CSR expectations: the focus of corporate marketing”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 326-40.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), The Future of Competition: Co-creating UniqueValues with Customers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Roland, D. and Bazzoni, J.O. (2009), “Greening corporate identity: CSR online corporateidentity reporting”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3,pp. 249-63.

Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R.P. (1977), Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry intoHuman Knowledge Structures, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of inter-group behavior”,in Worchel, S. and Austin, L.W. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall,Chicago, IL.

Vallentin, S. (2006), “Corporate social responsiveness and public opinion”, in Morsing, M. andBeckman, S.C. (Eds), Strategic CSR Communication, DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen,pp. 61-82.

van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice-Hall, Harlow.

van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity; the concept, its measurementand management”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 340-55.

CCIJ16,3

216

van Riel, C.B.M. and Fombrun, C.J. (2007), Essentials of Corporate Communication:Implementing Practices for Effective Reputation Management, Routledge, London.

Wood, D. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisited”, The Academy of Management Review,Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 691-717.

Zerubavel, E. and Smith, E.R. (2010), “Transcending cognitive individualism”, Social PsychologyQuarterly, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 321-5.

Corresponding authorAnne Ellerup Nielsen can be contacted at: aen@asb.dk

Strategicstakeholderdialogues

217

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints