Legitimating Negative Aspects in Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: Evidence From China

Yuting Lin Shenzhen University

Abstract

Research problem: This study investigates the way in which large Chinese firms communicated occupational fatalities in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. Research questions:1. Did the sample firms disclose information about workplace fatalities in their CSR reports? 2. What communicative strategies were used in the disclosure for the purpose of self-legitimation? 3. How were these strategies manifested linguistically and rhetorically? Literature review: The study is based on legitimacy theory, which suggests that when reporting bad news, firms may use communicative strategies to maintain or restore organizational legitimacy. Previous studies of negative CSR disclosures focus more on information selection and omission than on information presentation. A lack of consideration of actual organizational performance in some studies also makes it less feasible to account for strategies that firms use to misrepresent reality. Methodology: The study compared CSR reports issued by Fortune 500 Chinese firms with the firms' reports of fatal occupational incidents to see whether the incidents were reported faithfully. An integrated analytical framework of legitimation strategies, developed from previous studies of legitimation in organizational communication, was applied to the analysis. Results and conclusions: Most firms disclosed their fatality incidents. Legitimation strategies-in particular, positive performance evaluations and corrective actions-were used by the firms to de-emphasize or minimize the bad news. This study calls for greater attention from CSR monitors and professionals to information presentation as an important indicator of report quality. The findings are limited to one type of CSR disclosure and to the firms that were examined.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2019-09-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2019.2913917
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Cites in this index (3)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Also cites 26 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/1049732305276687
  2. 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
  3. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
  4. 10.1057/9780230511910
  5. 10.1007/s10551-009-0306-7
  6. 10.1002/9781118083246.ch27
  7. 10.1177/0021943605279244
  8. 10.1007/s10551-007-9375-7
  9. 10.1007/s10551-012-1490-4
  10. 10.1177/1750481307071986
  11. 10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4
  12. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.001
  13. 10.1108/09513579610116358
  14. 10.1080/09638180802579616
  15. 10.1080/00014788.1996.9729510
  16. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.016
  17. 10.1108/S1479-3563(2009)0000009007
  18. 10.1177/2329488414525443
  19. 10.2307/41166246
  20. 10.1108/09513570210435852
  21. 10.1108/09513570010353756
  22. 10.1111/1467-6303.00031
  23. 10.1007/s10551-011-0834-9
  24. 10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00008-1
  25. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
  26. 10.1177/0957926511431511