Half-truths and dirty secrets: Omissions in CSR communication

A cross‐national comparison of transparency signaling in corporate social responsibility reporting: The United States, South Korea, and China cases

“…Yet, scholars have also found that there were no differences between annual reports and stand‐alone CSR reports in disclosure quality, warning against the symbolic use of CSR‐reporting practices (Michelon et al, ). CSR reporting has also been criticized for its lack of relevance and credibility (Devin, ) and for its failure to impact sustainable development (Gray, ). Scholars warned about the use of CSR reporting as a legitimacy‐seeking tool when its objectives are greenwashing, impression management, and evasion from external review or when such communication does not translate to actual CSR performance (Devin, ; Michelon et al, ).…”

“…Communicating CSR is essential to increase the stakeholders' awareness of the company's initiatives and legitimate a company (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, ; Wang, Hsieh, & Sarkis, ). In particular, public relations scholars have emphasized the critical role of transparency in communication that increases stakeholders' confidence in the firms (Devin, ; Rawlins, ). Notwithstanding growing interest and the importance of transparency in CSR reporting, few studies have examined transparency as demonstrated in CSR reports (e.g., Carroll & Einwiller, ; Pérez, ).…”

Market Communication: Ethical and Praxeological Dimensions

“…According to surveys conducted in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, Scandinavian societies have mixed views on how companies should communicate (in the form of corporate advertising, corporate release, or minimal release) their CSR activities (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Devin (2016) points out that companies often resort to half-truths, omitting essential information when communicating social responsibility, which contributes to undermining their credibility and honesty, and thus achieving counterproductive or counter-effective results. The half-truth, according to Devin (2016), is "the communication of technically correct, truthful information that has been, or has the potential to be, undermined by the omission of key information" (p. 226).…”

“…Devin (2016) points out that companies often resort to half-truths, omitting essential information when communicating social responsibility, which contributes to undermining their credibility and honesty, and thus achieving counterproductive or counter-effective results. The half-truth, according to Devin (2016), is "the communication of technically correct, truthful information that has been, or has the potential to be, undermined by the omission of key information" (p. 226). As described by the author, the company may want to use its CSR reports for marketing purposes; the report gives the company the freedom to praise achievements, thereby influencing the market/stakeholder perception of its actions, but disclosing omissions of some relevant information can undermine the credibility of the information provided and compromise the reputation of the company, because what has not been said/written or has been unsaid may be equally important or even more important than what the content of the message is.…”

“…As described by the author, the company may want to use its CSR reports for marketing purposes; the report gives the company the freedom to praise achievements, thereby influencing the market/stakeholder perception of its actions, but disclosing omissions of some relevant information can undermine the credibility of the information provided and compromise the reputation of the company, because what has not been said/written or has been unsaid may be equally important or even more important than what the content of the message is. According to Devin (2016), half-truth complements a set of inappropriate means of market communication that can undermine firms' credibility and destroy its reputation, joining the well-known from the literature such practices as organizational hypocrisy, greenwashing or lies.…”