Public Relations Review, 26(3):363–380 Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc.

ISSN: 0363-8111 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Cynthia E. Clark
Differences Between
Public Relations and
Corporate Social
Responsibility:
An Analysis
ABSTRACT: This article compares corporate social responsibil-
ity and corporate public relations by reviewing their origins, the-
ories, processes, and primary responsibilities and found them to
be quite similar in these respects. By comparing the two disci-
plines, theorists and practitioners can gain greater insight into
each field.
The comparison reveals a key difference whereby effective
communication methods are largely absent from the social re-
sponsibility literature; yet by including such techniques, one can
enhance the development and overall impact of managing
corporate–stakeholder relationships. A communication manage-
ment approach, which is linked to stakeholder analysis, is offered.
Cynthia Clark is an assistant professor in the College of
Communication at Boston University where she teaches Corpo-
rate Communication.

Analyzing the similarities of public relations and corporate

social responsibility (CSR) creates an exciting opportunity to study the underpin-
nings of each discipline to reveal concrete ideas about how to optimize their
effectiveness and their impact on the corporate world. It is unclear why this type of
direct comparison has not been made before, but it is obvious that each discipline
has taken cues from the other. Like the Republican and Democratic political

Fall 2000 363

 Public Relations Review

parties, these two areas are sounding more and more similar. Just as it is necessary
to study each political party to understand their similarities, it is also important to
look at the beginning of CSR and public relations.
The rise of CSR, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, coincided with the
increased concern for a corporation’s image. No longer were the boardrooms
closed and executives quiet; instead, companies had to adapt to an ever-increasing
demand for information from the public. Soon after, with the publication of
Edward Freeman’s seminal work, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach,
the general public became to be viewed as a more specialized grouping of primary
and secondary stakeholders1
But, during much of the 1980s and early 1990s, social responsibility and
social performance lacked either a definitive model or a set of agreed-upon con-
cepts.2 Still, many scholars outlined several central topics aimed at describing
CSR.3
Although the history of public relations dates back to the turn of the 20th
century, its importance, or to some, its unwanted dependence, surged in the late
1970s as well. The important shifts in business and society during this time also
affected public relations by forcing it into the center of the communication field. It,
too, has gone through various iterations, from public information to reputation
management to relationship management, yet its process and function remains
strikingly similar to the central topics of CSR.

EVOLUTION: PUBLIC RELATIONS

AND CSR

Although organizations have been “relating” to the “pub-

lic” for centuries, the 1920s began what became the most dramatic set of changes
in the public relations field, which continued in earnest through the 1950s. Before
this period, public relations focused on the dissemination of information or one-
way communication models in which the quality of information was important but
audience feedback had yet to be fully considered. Public relations grew in scope
and stature in the 1920s with social scientists beginning to take note of the
profession.4 Theorists, such as Walter Lippmann, focused on the importance of the
media in forming public opinion. Practitioners also began to focus on the idea of
social responsibility, noting that it was good for public relations and hence good
for business.5
Arthur W. Page, one of the first in-house public relations experts, joined
AT&T in 1927 as a vice president. During his tenure, he coined many important
concepts that remain true today to both public relations and CSR practitioners.
One in particular deserves mention not only for its insight, but also for its useful-
ness in the 20th and 21st centuries:

All business in a democratic country begins with the public’s permission and
exists by public approval.6

364 Vol. 26, No. 3

 Public Relations and Social Responsibility

Page also believed that businesses should have public relations departments
that have real influence with top management. (p. 44)7
In the 1930s, after the Great Depression, the primary challenge was to
persuade a confused public that things were about to change for the better. The
focus of public relations at the time can be summed up by the campaign slogan of
The National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber of Commerce,
“What helps business helps you.”8 In other words, the needs of business and
society were synonymous. In an effort to bring prosperity to a traumatized, post-
Depression nation, public relations efforts seemed to dip back into one-way com-
munication.
However, the 1940s, according to one communications scholar, saw public
relations become a “full-fledged profession” as it became more sophisticated and
coordinated.9 Practitioners began to use opinion research techniques such as the
newly established Gallup Poll. It was also during this time that the first school of
public relations was established at Boston University.
In the 1950s, it was television that had a profound effect on public relations
because of its powerful ability to shape the publics’ opinions, something eagerly
sought. Some corporations found TV to be helpful in shaping their reputations,
whereas others did not.10 Public relations study began to blossom with over 100
college or universities offering courses in public relations. Theory tended to focus
on two-way communication models and was practiced by the likes of Edward
Bernays, who focused on scientific research, audience feedback, and the evaluation
of attitudes. It was during this time that public relations was marked by the concept
of engineering consent.11 Corporations were counseled to gain the public’s con-
sent for their operations and over-all philosophy, thereby solving public policy
problems.12
During the 1960s, the antibusiness sentiment in the United States was
palpable. The much-publicized era of activism began to change the way in which
corporations interacted with society, and thus how they communicated with soci-
ety. The aforementioned public consent was thought by some to be dissolving
because of the insurgence of activism and public skepticism. Nuclear power, civil
rights abuses, regulation of business’ activities, the consumer rights movement,
and the women’s movement were just a few key developments that contributed to
the tension between business and society. New demands were placed on public
relations professionals, such as management skills and an understanding of human
psychology. By the late 1960s, the discipline had its own professional organization,
the Public Relations Society of America.
In 1973, the Texas Gulf Sulfur case made its imprint on public relations by
fundamentally changing the practice. The judge declared that a company must
immediately disclose any information that may affect the value of a stock, in this
case the discovery by engineers of a rich mineral body. Public relations practitio-
ners then needed to focus on their role as insiders by making sure they did not
arbitrarily select what information to reveal and what to conceal. The field of
investor relations gained considerable momentum as well after the Supreme
Court’s decision.

Fall 2000 365

 Public Relations Review

Similarly, those advocating social responsibility of business struggled to

define their discipline beginning primarily in the 1920s. The idea of CSR appeared
around the turn of the 20th century.13 At that time, businesses tended to respond
to societal needs through charity. Certain wealthy individuals, such as Andrew
Carnegie and Henry Ford, gave money to support the poor in a time when
Medicare and Social Security did not exist.
Soon, however, society’s needs became too great, with steady population
increases and the aftermath of World War I. As a result, much of the charitable
contributions were taken on by businesses themselves and not just by their wealthy
owners. According to Post et al. many of today’s businesses think of CSR as making
these types of paternalistic, charitable contributions.14 However, he continues,
there is another form of CSR, that is, the stewardship principle. According to this
view, corporations become stewards or public trustees by using their resources to
affect all people in society in fundamental ways, not just stockholders. This latter
principle led to modern stakeholder theory in which corporate managers recognize
the need to interact meaningfully with all groups who have a stake in the organi-
zation’s activities. Although stewardship ideas were discussed in the works of
Abrams, Bowen, and Eells, it was during the 1960s and 1970s, that CSR under-
went some of its most important iterations.15
As Wood outlined in her comprehensive work on theory and research in
corporate social performance, “it became apparent during this time, particularly
through social activism and regulatory activity, that social expectations of business
had outstripped managers’ comprehension and capabilities.”16 Thus, scholars and
managers alike began to explore, in earnest, the ideas of CSR. In the 1970s, a
plethora of studies on various business-related social problems were conducted
(see below). Such research was based on the idea that a business is an “actor in the
environment and should respond to social pressures and demands.”17 By the early
1980s, there was a slight shift in the focus of the research from the idea that
companies should be responsible to how companies tended to respond to business-
related social issues (responsiveness) as well as what was considered ethical behav-
ior.
Models of CSR began to emerge, with most claiming that business and
society are intricately woven and that businesses had a responsibility to respond to
societal needs and pressures.18 The founding of the International Association of
Business and Society in 1990 reiterated the notion that all businesses around the
globe faced similar business and societal issues.

THE PROCESS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF

PUBLIC RELATIONS

In the most widely read textbooks published after 1970,

the process of public relations is described by using decision making models and
two-way communication. Cutlip and Center offered four stages in their public
relations model: fact-finding and feedback, planning and programming, action and

366 Vol. 26, No. 3

 Public Relations and Social Responsibility

communication, and evaluation.19 This idea was slightly altered and became the
four-step management process:

● Defining the problem (or opportunity);

● Planning and programming;
● Taking action and communicating; and
● Evaluating the program20

Marston coined the well-known RACE framework, a derivation of the above

model, which included four stages as well: research, action, communication, and
evaluation.21
These formulas set out to solve an organizational or image problem by using
primary or secondary research techniques to uncover it and communication tactics
(issue ads, news releases, and the like) to remedy it. These decision-making pro-
cesses are well known in public relations education and practice today, although
they are quite different from the publicity-seeking press agents and publicists of the
early part of the 1900s who practiced one-way communication.22
Grunig and Hunt referred to these processes in their description of two-way
symmetrical communication.23 They maintained that with the two-way symmet-
rical model both the company and various publics can change attitudes and be-
havior as a result of a well planned, two-way flow of information. Rather than
simply disseminating information, practitioners of this approach research the val-
ues of the stakeholder and attempt to define the issue, mutually, before commu-
nicating a corporate policy or a program regarding that issue. Public relations firms
seeking excellence practice two-way symmetrical communication, which can foster
better relationships leading to greater organizational effectiveness, stronger ethics,
and higher profits.24
Perhaps one reason for the staying power of these decision-making models,
is that practicing public relations in this way tends to elevate the function to the
manager level by using research and evaluation. Through these techniques, a
practitioner can more easily comment on the public relations campaign’s relation-
ship to an increase or decrease in public opinion or sales. As Kruckeberg and Starck
discussed, most authors and practitioners believe public relations practiced in this
way can be professional, ethical, and socially responsible and constitutes “real”
public relations. Furthering this concept in their book, The Quandary of Public
Relations, they stated that public relations is actually an attempt to restore and
maintain a sense of community and that public relations today is best practiced as
community relations—an essential function for a company interested in preserving
a good reputation.25
Practitioners, not just theorists, helped to forward the ideas of the two-way
symmetrical model. In the mid-1970s, Harold Burson, one of the founders of
Burson–Marsteller, began advocating that the role of a public relations executive is
to provide qualitative evaluation of social trends, which will help the practitioner
develop policies leading to a formal corporate response.26
It was about this time that CSR and public relations began to sound most

Fall 2000 367

 Public Relations Review

similar. Bernays was quoted as saying simply, “Public relations is the practice of
social responsibility” (p. 47) at the 1980 meeting of the Association for Education
in Journalism at Boston University.27
James Grunig and Todd Hunt, two well-known communications scholars,
devoted a chapter in their book to public relations and public responsibility in
which they said, “public, or social, responsibility has become a major reason for an
organization to have a public relations function” and two-way symmetrical com-
munication is the best means by which to evaluate social responsibility (p. 48).
Grunig and Hunt maintained that with the two-way symmetrical model both the
company and the stakeholder can change attitudes and behavior as a result of a well
planned, two-way flow of information.27
Not long after, managers and theorists began tinkering with the term public
relations by referring to their work as reputation management or perception man-
agement. One of the world’s largest public relations agency, Burson–Marsteller
uses the latter term almost exclusively with nary a mention of public relations in its
collateral material. During most of the 1990s, practitioners at the top public
relations agencies promoted their services as reputation management and were
clearly focused on a two-way symmetrical model. Other than managing reputation,
the public relations practitioner must maintain credibility, build solid internal and
external relationships, and effectively manage issues.
Managing relationships has received a great amount of attention in the last
several years. This perspective emphasizes building, nurturing, and maintaining
organizational–public relationships rather than focusing on changing public opin-
ion.28 This shift helps to emphasize the mutually beneficial relationship aspect of
most definitions of public relations.29

CSR: PROCESS AND RESPONSIBILITY

One of the early theorists on the process of CSR was L. E.

Preston, a consultant to the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration in
Canada.30 Part of that study included Preston’s ideas on the corporate social
response matrix, the focus of which was the management of social issues by cor-
porations.31 Managers followed a four-step process known as corporate social
involvement. The stages included

● Awareness or recognition of an issue;

● Analysis and planning;
● Response in terms of policy development; and
● Implementation.

Earlier though, Preston and Post stated that companies had a responsibility
to certain primary and secondary involvements with society, but not to issues
unrelated to these involvements.32 This study helped to establish the idea that
business and society are interdependent and was later expanded to include respon-

368 Vol. 26, No. 3

 Public Relations and Social Responsibility

siveness strategies. Following Preston and Post, Frederick developed a later-

popularized shorthand for CSR and corporate social responsiveness by referring to
them as CSR1 and CSR2, respectively.33
Quite soon after, Carroll began to sharpen the definition of CSR1 by stating
that businesses have four basic responsibilities to society: economic, legal, ethical,
and discretionary. He also outlined four main responsiveness strategies: reactive,
defensive, accommodative, and proactive.34
Wartick and Cochran built on Carroll’s viewpoint of CSR2 processes by
stating that in addition to being reactive or defensive, companies could be respon-
sive and interactive. The authors also defined CSP as “the integration of the
principles of social responsibility, the processes of social responsiveness, and the
policies developed to address social issues.”35 Miles felt that responsiveness, CSR2,
had to do with a company’s external affairs strategy and design, which are both
dependant on top management philosophy.36 Miles represents one of the only
social issues in management researchers to meaningfully address the importance of
communication in social responsibility.
Wood also provided a model of corporate social performance in a well-
developed schema of principles, processes, and outcomes. The principles help to
describe CSR, which is based on legitimacy, public responsibility, and managerial
discretion. The process of CSR includes environmental assessment, stakeholder
management, and issues management. The final component refers to the out-
comes of corporate behavior on social impacts, programs, and policies.37

THE SIMILARITIES OF PUBLIC

RELATIONS AND CSR

It becomes clear, by looking at the processes of CSR and

public relations, that these two disciplines have much in common. As Figure 1
shows, the main processes of each mirror one another in both content and evolu-
tion. Primarily, Wood’s description of corporate social performance and Cutlip
and Center’s four-step management process provide the central unifying factor
between public relations and social issues in management.
Beginning with the first stage of the management process, effective public
relations practitioners focus on research and definition of the problem, or in some
cases, the opportunity. Marston referred to this stage simply as research. This first
step relies on internal and external situational analyses to monitor the knowledge,
opinions, attitudes, and behaviors of those who are concerned with or affected by
the actions and policies of an organization.38
This initial step provides the foundation for the entire management process
wherein communication is viewed as part of the solution, not the problem. The
internal situation analysis includes a communications audit, “a systematic docu-
mentation of an organization’s communication behavior for the purpose of un-
derstanding how it communicates with its publics.”39 The external situation anal-
ysis begins with a systematic review of the history of the problem and continues by

Fall 2000 369

 Public Relations Review

Figure 1. The Similarities of Public Relations and CRS Process.

conducting a stakeholder analysis, that is, “gathering information about stakehold-

ers: what they know, how they feel and what they do that is related to the prob-
lem.”40
Lerbinger analyzed corporate use of research and identified four main cat-
egories: environmental monitoring, public relations audits, communication audits,
and social audits. Environmental audits were used by organizations to gauge public
opinion and observe social and political events and their impact on the organiza-
tion; public relations audits identified the power and nature of relevant publics;
communications audits surveyed the internal and external communication prod-
ucts used, and social audits assessed how the company performed as a corporate
citizen.41
Dozier, in his 1987 study of International Association of Business Commu-
nicators (IABC) members, found that practitioners using the two-way symmetrical
approach to communication also used informal, mixed, and scientific research to
scan environments.42
This first stage of Cutlip’s four stage management process is very similar to
Wood’s process of CSP; its first stage is an environmental assessment whose un-
derlying assumption is that a company with a sound ability to assess its political and
social environment would have the knowledge it needed to be more responsive to
societal demands. Wood’s model would be more effective if it, too, considered
researching the internal environment and using communication as an assessment
tool. Still, Cutlip’s definition of research and Lerbinger’s explanation of effective
research techniques parallel that of Wood’s environmental assessment phase of the

370 Vol. 26, No. 3

 Public Relations and Social Responsibility

CSP model. Miles’ research also aids in the joining of public relations and CSP
models by including external affairs strategy and top management philosophy, an
internal assessment, as an important element to social responsiveness.
Returning to Cutlip’s four stage management process, the second stage
includes planning and programming, which is designed to pick up where research
leaves off. After a problem or opportunity is defined, practitioners must devise a
strategy for managing the problem or for making the best of the opportunity.
Strategic planning in public relations involves making sound decisions about pro-
gram goals and objectives, identifying key publics, setting policies, and determin-
ing strategies.43 All of this is done with specific outcomes and each stakeholder
group’s unique needs in mind.
Similarly, Wood’s second phase of CSP is stakeholder management, or the
process by which corporations try to “understand their stakeholder environments,
manage their stakeholder relations, deal with stakeholder demands and expecta-
tions, and try to improve their own positions of power and influence within
stakeholder networks.”44 Stakeholder categories in both Cutlip and Wood were
identified; each described the importance of managing relationships with employ-
ees, stockholders, consumers, community groups, and government to the over-all
success of the corporation. Wood focused on categorizing stakeholder manage-
ment research streams, whereas Cutlip explained how identifying these groups
would help the effectiveness of the communication. It seems obvious that com-
munication is at the very heart of managing relationships, yet CSR research largely
overlooks this fundamental aspect.
In the third step of the public relations management process, the focus is
implementation. Having defined the problem and identified a viable solution, one
must take action and communicate that action. The goals and objectives identified
earlier are now implemented through properly identified communications chan-
nels. Practitioners try to determine how best to convey the corporation’s message,
while keeping in mind that “effective communication must be designed for the
situation, time, place and audience”45
Wartick, Cochran, and Wood saw issues management as the third prong of
the corporate social performance model. Defined as policies and programs for
managing social issues, issues management is yet another area where public rela-
tions and CSR come together; both disciplines have used it in research and prac-
tice. In most companies, however, public affairs or corporate communications
departments usually practice issues management.46 According to Heath, issues
management requires the activities and values needed to support strategic plan-
ning, monitoring, communicating, and achieving responsibility; indeed, it is an
amalgam of both communication and management.47
Evaluation is the fourth and final stage in the management process. It is
reasoned that effective public relations occur when communication activities
achieve the program goals stated in the second step of Cutlip’s public relations
management model. In recent years, communication effects have been studied by
others as well to clarify what results are likely from a communications program and
how managers measure the effectiveness of such programs.48

Fall 2000 371

 Public Relations Review

The co-orientation model illustrates effective ways to set objectives when

using two-way symmetrical communication and how the impact of communica-
tions programs can be evaluated.49 This model posits that issues can be under-
stood, through research, in a way that brings the stakeholder’s values in line with
those held by the corporation. Not only is this model useful in evaluation, but in
the research and implementation stages as well. Broom stated that paramount to
this approach is “the assumption that a public’s opinion and behavior are deter-
mined in part by its perceptions of the issue.”50 A researcher attempts to measure
the discrepancy between the corporate definition of the issue and the stakeholders’
definition. If a discrepancy exists, the company may have a communications prob-
lem.
Broom reasoned that “reducing or eliminating the discrepancy becomes the
motivation for the informational and persuasive messages” used by the corpora-
tion.51
According to co-orientation, organizations and their stakeholders can hold
accurate or inaccurate opinions of one another or may or may not understand one
another’s motives, values, and actions. Broom encouraged communication man-
agers to determine the congruency, or the extent to which the organization’s views
of an issue are similar to its estimate of the stakeholders’ view. Broom further
postulated that communication may have less to do with the extent to which
parties agree or disagree than with the accuracy of their cross perceptions (co-
orientation) of each other’s views.
Once again, there exists a striking similarity in Wood’s third dimension of
the corporate social performance model, where the focus is on the outcomes of
corporate and human action that can be observed and evaluated. It seems obvious
that human action refers to the way in which one reacts to the communication
methods used to express the CSP of the company. This third dimension does not,
however, allow for the effect of the communication approach on various stake-
holders. In other words, the outcome of CSP, the social impact, programs, and
policies, could have a great deal to do with the method of communication used by
the company.
Some social issues in management research has focused on communication
and its relationship to social responsibility by stating that external affairs policies
and procedures are important to social responsibility52, but these studies, by de-
sign, do not delve much deeper than this statement of fact.
Dozier and Ehling, two communication researchers, concluded that sym-
metrical, strategic communications programs, such as those illustrated by Cutlip
and Grunig, can achieve cognitive effects, but that strong behavioral effects are
unlikely in the short term. Lasting behavioral changes can occur, however, when
attitudes are formed through highly involved communication methods that stim-
ulate thought.53 Communication research has also looked specifically into how
best to communicate the social responsibility of an organization as well as the
important relationship variables of the organization–public relationship.54
Both the CSP and public relations fields are in need of more research into the
value of their efforts if either is going to solidify a permanent place as a manage-

372 Vol. 26, No. 3

 Public Relations and Social Responsibility

ment function. Recent developments in each suggest that reputation is an impor-

tant area of future research.
In the public relations field, Marsteller began mentioning reputation man-
agement as an important element to the public relations function. Still others
sought to describe the importance of communicating the value of social responsi-
bility to various stakeholders and communicating that this responsibility lies with
the public relations department.55 Throughout the 1990s, some public relations
practitioners and theorists asserted that reputation management is just another
word for “good” public relations. With the recognition of a more demanding and
diverse public ushered in during the 1960s, public relations practitioners realized
that if the company is to attract the best employees, raise capital effectively, become
a good community member, or gain and retain loyal customers, then it must
communicate in ways that protect the corporation’s reputation. To Fombrun one
of the primary ways to build a sound corporate reputation is through effective
communication.56
In several recent management studies as well, reputation has been used as a
measurement of corporate social performance.57 Using Fortune Magazine’s Cor-
porate Reputation Index both McGuire et al. and Fombrun and Shanley found a
positive correlation between CSP and financial performance. However, not all
researchers found such a relationship.58
Fombrun recently echoed some of the dissatisfaction with reputation studies
and developed, with Harris Interactive, the Reputation Quotient, a measure of
corporate reputation designed to measure the multistakeholder “halo” around a
corporation. It looks into six basic building blocks of reputation under which 20
corporate attributes are classified.59 Most are based on perception, which is a
prevailing theme in public relations research and evaluation.

THE COMMUNICATION–MANAGEMENT
APPROACH

Even though the relationship between corporate public

relations and CSR is similar in both its evolution and its modern practice, addi-
tional research into the ways in which to combine these areas to optimize organi-
zational effectiveness must be conducted to aid those in the business and commu-
nications fields. It appears that public relations educators see the need to learn
management skills,60 yet leaders in the social issues in management area tend to
avoid looking into the importance of communication skills in management edu-
cation. As Wood wrote, “more research is needed to illuminate the conditions
under which companies will choose a particular response mode.”61
The communication-management approach, or CMA, is an attempt to join
the most compelling arguments made by CSR and public relations, that is, to use
the knowledge of identifying stakeholder groups and a corporation’s responsibility
to them with the ability to strengthen these relationships through effective com-
munication. To be sure, it is an attempt to erase the lines that have been drawn

Fall 2000 373

 Public Relations Review

Figure 2. The Communication-Management Approach.

between communication and management. The approach relies on the acknowl-

edgment that communication cannot occur in a vacuum without the input and
support of management, and likewise, managing a company cannot occur,
whether its in a socially responsible manner or not, without communication.
Figure 2 illustrates the relationship of CSR and public relations ideas, and how
their overlap can enhance the overall management approach.

Step One
Communications managers and business managers recog-
nize the need to analyze multiple stakeholders (sometimes referred to as publics) to
develop a sense of the needs and wants of those who are either critical to the
corporation’s existence or capable of expressing significant concern (primary and
secondary stakeholders). To this end, conducting a stakeholder analysis is im-
mensely helpful. One cannot effectively manage any stakeholder relationships by
either conducting a communications analysis or a stakeholder analysis; both are
necessary. The focus of the internal– external stakeholder audit includes the vital
historical, social, and political dimensions of the issues facing stakeholders.
To understand and respond to the needs of these primary and secondary
groups, one must get a complete picture of the issues and expectations. Grunig
outlined the importance of such an approach:

The results should help corporate executives and their public relations manag-
ers to select social issues for attention and auditing and to plan a communica-
tion program to inform publics about responsible corporate acts.62

Out of this comprehensive audit will develop the stakeholder issue profile:
their concerns, attitudes, and previous actions.

374 Vol. 26, No. 3

 Public Relations and Social Responsibility

Step Two
Quickly after, or sometimes simultaneously, the past and
present methods of communication should be analyzed, not only the communi-
cation from the corporation to the stakeholders, but also from the stakeholders to
the corporation. Again, the historical, social and political arenas must be consid-
ered. Answers to the following questions are sought:

● What have the company and the stakeholders said in the past about
the issue? (historical dimension)
● What has been said by politicians or activist groups? (political di-
mension)
● How does society frame this issue? (social dimension)

The communications analysis, which in all three dimensions includes medi-

ated and nonmediated channels, relies heavily on the feedback element as well as
action strategies and co-orientation explained above. If the communication anal-
ysis does not flow two ways, it is an incomplete picture. The historical, social, and
political audits yield a set of facts that help to determine how to manage the
communication effort going forward. This fact stream reveals a communication
profile defining the quality of the relationship between each stakeholder group and
the organization.
Also important to any communication effort is the determination of public
opinion. Grunig’s schema of latent, aware, and active publics reveals an approach
that is helpful in identifying perceptions of important potential audiences for the
company’s messages.63
Likewise, analysis of the communications effort can determine the quality of
the organizational–public relationship. J. Grunig, L. Grunig, and W. Ehling first
outlined relationship dimensions of trust, reciprocity, openness and mutual satis-
faction, understanding, and legitimacy as a way of identifying the quality of the
relationship.64 Expanding on this research, Bruning and Ledingham offered a
definition of the organization–public relationship which is the “state which exists
between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity
impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural well-being of the other
entity.”65 Management of the communications effort relies on the quality of the
present relationship with the primary or secondary stakeholder, as revealed in the
communication profile and the communication effects of various methods. This
type of analysis is precisely what is missing in current CSR research.

Step Three
Taking the above research streams into consideration, one
can establish, inform, mitigate, or maintain his or her relationship with key stake-
holders. As a result of the communication profile a company may determine that its
relationship is suffering because its reputation needs work, as in the case of Philip

Fall 2000 375

 Public Relations Review

Morris, or that the company must build more trust between itself and the imme-
diate community, such as the case of Boston College and the Chestnut Hill
neighborhood, or that the company needs to work on a particular legislative
initiative to maintain its competitive advantage, similar to the “baby bells” helping
to shape the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
In this way, it is helpful to briefly illuminate the case of Philip Morris. It has
and will encounter stakeholders who are quite resistant to its message, that it is a
responsible organization, because of stakeholders’ attitudes toward the company,
although it is one of the most charitable organizations in the United States. These
attitudes are based on long-standing historical, political, and social aspects of its
behavior and the nature of its products. This and other vital feedback would be
revealed through a comprehensive stakeholder and communications audit. Main-
taining its current messages, that it is a multinational organization that sells more
than cigarettes and that it does not encourage minors to smoke, would prove
ineffective in promoting a better image.
Instead, Philip Morris must take into consideration the perceptions it has
among its stakeholder groups as well as the fact stream that can be compiled on its
legislative acts, advertising or public relations messages, and its comments on social
and moral issues. As a result, it would want to opt for a mitigating approach to
communicating with its audience whereby it attempts to soften its actions. As
Grunig stated, “if the communication manager can plan communication with
latent and aware publics in a potential conflict situation then he can mediate
between organization and public—to facilitate understanding and perhaps
accommodation— before actual conflict results.”66
Although mitigating works for some organizations, other companies need
to inform their stakeholders of new or changing information. Still, some compa-
nies, such as those in the e-commerce field, are more dependent on establishing an
audience. The ideal sought by the manager is, however, to communicate with an
aware public early enough so that the public does not form negative opinions
about the organization and then use that negativity to influence government.

CONCLUSION

The connection between corporate public relations, and its

use of effective communication and relationship management, and social respon-
sibility is still developing. Specifically, questions as to the chosen message and how
it affects the reputation or perception of an organization as responsible remain.
However, it is clear that corporate public relations and CSR have, throughout this
last century, a set of similarities, which provide clues to their integration and
increased joint effectiveness. This connection suggests that public relations and
CSR have similar objectives; both disciplines are seeking to enhance the quality of
the relationship of an organization among key stakeholder groups. Both disciplines
recognize that to do so makes good business sense.
The role that communication has in building these quality relationship is an

376 Vol. 26, No. 3

 Public Relations and Social Responsibility

important one; one that is largely unrecognized by CSR researchers. Communi-

cation managers have the ability to scan the political, social, and historical envi-
ronment regarding a myriad of issues; likewise, business competitiveness rests on
knowing who will be affected by a company’s decisions. Therefore, it is critical that
these disciplines acknowledge their similarities and work toward combining their
efforts. Furthering the understanding of relationships and the effects of commu-
nication will continue to aid researchers and practitioners in the building of bridges
between CSR and corporate public relations. The communication-management
approach is offered as a part of this process.

Notes

1. R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston:

Pitman/Ballinger, 1984).
2. Donna J. Wood, “Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate
Social Performance,” Journal of Management 17 (1991), pp. 383– 406.
3. L. E. Preston and James E. Post, Private Management and Public Policy: The Principle
of Public Responsibility (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall 1975.); William C.
Frederick, “From CSR1 to CSR2: The Maturing of Business and Society Thought,”
working paper, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, 1978;
Archie B. Carroll, “A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social
Performance,” Academy of Management Review 4 (1979), pp. 497–505; S. L.
Wartick and Phil L. Cochran, “The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance
Model,” Academy of Management Review 10 (1985), pp. 758 –769; Wood, op. cit.,
pp. 383– 406.
4. Doug Newsome, Judy VanSlyke Turk, and Dean Kruckeberg, This Is PR: The Real-
ities of Public Relations (7th ed.). (CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, 2000).
5. L. L. Golden, Only by Public Consent: American Corporations Search for Favorable
Opinion (NY: Hawthorne Books, 1968).
6. G. Griswold, “How AT&T Public Relations Policies Developed,” Public Relations
Quarterly 12 (1967), pp. 7–16.
7. Doug Newsome, op. cit., p. 44.
8. L. L. Golden, op. cit., p. 386.
9. Charles S. Steinberg, The Creation of Consent (New York: Hastings House, 1975), p.
27.
10. Newsome, op. cit., p. 49.
11. Edward L. Bernays, The Engineering of Consent (Norman, OK: University of Okla-
homa Press, 1955).
12. Robert L. Heath, “Corporate Issues Management: Theoretical Underpinnings and
Research Foundations, “ Public Relations Research Annual 2 (1990), pp. 29 – 65.
13. James E. Post, William C. Frederick, Anne T. Lawrence and James Weber, Business
and Society: Corporate Strategy. Public Policy, Ethics (8th ed.). (New York: McGraw-
Hill Inc., 1996).
14. Ibid., p. 41.
15. F. W. Abrams, “Management’s Responsibilities in a Complex World,” Harvard
Business Review May (1951), pp. 29 –34; H. R. Bowen, Social Responsibilities of the

Fall 2000 377

 Public Relations Review

Businessman (New York: Harper, 1953); R. Eells, The Meaning of Modern Business
(NY: Columbia University Press, 1960).
16. Donna J. Wood, op. cit., p. 383.
17. Ibid., p. 384.
18. Ibid., p. 384.
19. Scott M. Cutlip and Allen H. Center, Effective Public Relations (5th ed.). (Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), pp. 316 –317.
20. Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, Effective Public Relations (7th
ed.). (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994).
21. John E. Marston, Modern Public Relations (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979), pp.
185–203.
22. James E. Grunig and Todd T. Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New York: Har-
court Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1984).
23. Ibid., p. 23.
24. James E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Manage-
ment (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1992).
25. Dean Kruckeburg and Kenneth Starck, Public Relations and Community: A Recon-
structed Theory (New York: Praeger, 1988), pp. 17–21.
26. Harold Burson, “The Public Relations Function in the Socially Responsible Corpo-
ration,” in A. Ashen (ed.), Managing the Socially Responsible Corporation (New York:
Macmillan, 1974), pp. 224, 227.
27. James E. Grunig and Todd T. Hunt, op. cit.
28. Stephen D. Bruning and John A. Ledingham, “Relationships Between Organizations
and Publics, Development of a Multi-Dimensional Organization-Public Relationship
Scale,” Public Relations Review 25 (1999), pp. 158.
29. Public Relations Society of America adopted a definition of public relations in 1987,
which read, “public relations is the management function that establishes and main-
tains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on
whom its success or failure depends.”
30. Max B. E. Clarkson, “A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Cor-
porate Social Performance,” in M.B.E. Clarkson (ed.), The Corporation and its Stake-
holders: Classic and Contemporary Reading (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1995), pp. 243–274.
31. Ibid., p. 244.
32. L. E. Preston and James E. Post, 1975., op. cit., p. 10.
33. William C. Frederick, op. cit., p. 10.
34. Archie B. Carroll, op. cit., pp. 497, 505.
35. S. L. Wartick and Phil Cochran, op. cit., p. 758.
36. Robert H. Miles, Managing the Corporate Social Environment (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1987), p. 28 –30.
37. Donna J. Wood, op. cit., pp. 388, 389.
38. Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., pp. 201–203.
39. Ibid., p. 323.
40. Ibid., p. 324.
41. Otto Lerbinger, “Corporate Uses of Research in Public Relations,” Public Relations
Review 3 (1977), pp. 11–19.
42. David M. Dozier, “The Innovation of Research in Public Relations Practice: Review
of a Program of Studies,” Public Relations Research Annual 2 (1990), pp. 3–28.
43. Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 349.

378 Vol. 26, No. 3

 Public Relations and Social Responsibility

44. Donna J. Wood, op. cit. p. 392.

45. Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 387.
46. S. L. Wartick and R. E. Rude, “Issues Management: Corporate Fad or Corporate
Function?” California Management Review 29 (1986), pp. 124 –140.
47. Robert L. Heath, op. cit., p. 33. See also W. H. Chase “Issues Management
Conference—A Special Report,” Corporate Public Issues and Their Management 7
(1982), pp. 1–2; S. Prakash Sethi, Advocacy Advertising and Large Corporations:
Social Conflict, Big Business Image, the News Media, and Public Policy (Lexington,
MA: D.C. Heath, 1977); S. Prakash Sethi, Handbook of Advocacy Advertising: Con-
cepts, Strategies, and Applications (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1987); L. E. Preston
and James E. Post, op. cit., p. 10; James E. Post, E. A. Murray, R B. Dickie, and John
F. Mahon, “The Public Affairs Function,” California Management Review 36
(1983), pp. 135–150.
48. James E. Grunig, “The Message-Attitude-Behavior Relationship: Communication
Behaviors of Organizations” Communication Research 9 pp. 163–200; Glen M.
Broom and David M. Dozier, “An Overview: Evaluation Research in Public Rela-
tions” Public Relations Quarterly 28 (3), pp. 5– 8.
49. Glen M. Broom, “Coorientational Measurement of Public Issues” Public Relations
Review 3 (4) (1977), pp. 110 –119; Glen M. Broom and David M. Dozier, Using
Research in Public Relations: Applications to Program Management (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990).
50. Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 111.
51. Ibid., p. 111.
52. James E. Post, op. cit.; William C. Freeman, op. cit.; Robert H. Miles, op. cit.
53. David M. Dozier and William P. Ehling, “Evaluation of Public Relations Programs:
What the Literature Tells Us About Their Effects,” in James E. Grunig (ed.), Excel-
lence in Public Relations and Communications Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 159 –181.
54. James E. Grunig, “A New Measure of Public Opinions on Corporate Social Respon-
sibility” Academy of Management Journal 22 (4), pp. 738 –764; Jarol B. Manheim
and Cornelius B. Pratt, “Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility,” Public
Relations Review Summer (1986), pp. 9 –18; John A. Ledingham and Stephen D.
Bruning (1999), op. cit., p. 160 –162.
55. Otto Lerbinger, “The Social Functions of Public Relations,” in O. Lerberger and J. A.
Sullivan (ed.), Information Influence and Communication (New York: Basic Books,
1965), pp. 53– 60; James E. Grunig 91979), op.cit., pp. 739 –741; James E. Grunig
and Todd T. Hunt, op. cit., pp. 56 –57.
56. Charles Fombrun, Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image (Boston:
Harvard Business School Press, 1990), pp. 9 –11.
57. Charles Fombrun and Mark Shanley, “What’s In a Name: Reputation Building and
Corporate Strategy,” Academy of Management Journal 33 (1990), pp. 233–258;
Samuel B. Graves and Sandra A. Waddock, “Institutional Owners and Corporate
Social Performance,” Academy of Management Journal 37 (1994), pp. 1034 –1046;
J. J. Griffin and John F. Mahon, “The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate
Financial Performance Debate,” Business and Society March (1997), pp. 5–31; A.
Thomas and R. Simerly, “The Chief Executive Officer and Corporate Social Perfor-
mance: An Interdisciplinary Investigation,” Journal of Business Ethics 13 (1994), pp.
959 –968; J. A. McQuire, A. Sundgren, and T. Schneeweiss, “Corporate Social Re-

Fall 2000 379

 Public Relations Review

sponsibility and Firm Financial Performance,” Academy of Management Journal 31

(1988), pp. 854 – 872.
58. Kenneth Aupperle, Archie B. Carroll, and J. A. Hatfield, “An Empirical Examination
of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability” Acad-
emy of Management Journal 28 (1985), pp. 446 – 463.
59. Ronald Alsop, “The Best Corporations in America,” The Wall Street Journal (Sep-
tember 23, 1999), p. B1.
60. James E. Grunig, “Teaching Public Relations in the Future,” Public Relations Review
15 (1990), pp. 12–23; Judy Van Slyke Turk, “Management Skills Need to be Taught
in Public Relations,” Public Relations Review 15 (1) (1989), pp. 38 – 44.
61. Donna J. Wood, op. cit., p. 398.
62. James. E. Grunig, 1979., op. cit., p. 739.
63. Ibid., p. 740 –741.
64. James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, and William P. Ehling, “What is an Effective
Organization,” in J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communi-
cations Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 65–
90.
65. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning, 1998., op. cit., p. 61.
66. James E. Grunig, 1979., op. cit., p. 741.

380 Vol. 26, No. 3