Informative Speech Critique Speaker’s name and link to speech: Title of Speech: Overall Assessment of Speech For each of the following criteria, mark an “X” in the space nearest the adjective that best indicates your assessment of the speaker’s performance. SPEECH CONTENT Introduction Gained my attention Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Preview was specific Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Main points were signposted Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Body Supporting evidence was used for each main point Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Conclusion Summarized main points Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Conclusion was memorable Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Speech Delivery Smiled and looked friendly Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Gave sustained eye contact Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak No nervous mannerisms Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Vocal volume was loud enough Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Vocal delivery was understandable Strong _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _Weak Written Assessment Please write complete sentences and provide examples to illustrate what you observed. You need to write 200 words for this part of assignment. 1. The best “thing” this speaker did was: 2. The “thing” I would like changed most is the following: 3. General comments about speech. perspective, corporate legitimacy is mainly linked to the extent to which companies are able to build and maintain relationships with stakeholders. More specifically, it is assumed that scanning and monitoring the environment, i.e. scrutinizing and keeping track of public reactions toward companies’ and competitors’ CSR practices, is a first prerequisite for achieving corporate legitimacy. This perspective on CSR communication preempts pragmatic legitimacy. With companies’ strong interest in monitoring, controlling and managing issues, this perspective on CSR communication is first and foremost a pragmatic legitimacy concern. The impetus of exercising corporate control over CSR communication processes and outcomes is suggested as a way for companies to critically assess their own and their competitors’ CSR performances, as well as to anticipate and handle potential dilemmas and conflicts emerging in their environment. From a performance perspective, corporate legitimacy is expected to occur as a result of a company’s ability to establish and maintain good relations with stakeholders through various stakeholder engagement practices. Engagement, participation, collaboration and empowerment are thus framed as drivers of legitimacy. Primary legitimation strategies from this perspective may be characterized as pragmatic and moral. Appealing to stakeholder engagement and involvement is instrumental for gaining social capital, and it also paves the way for collaborating and networking with stakeholders on collective ideals, values and agendas. In other words, the behavior, attitude and communicative role of managers, employees and non-corporate members are framed as crucial for gaining corporate legitimacy. Following this rationale, inviting employees and other stakeholders to interact and enter into dialogue about CSR agendas, initiatives, policies and programs is a means of opening for two-way communication. This two-way communication enjoys higher credibility and is considered to be more stimulating for stakeholder engagement than one-way communication. Accordingly, and not surprisingly, the interest in social media, with its interactive and co-creative character is suggested and anticipated as an appropriate persuasion strategy. A conceptual and rhetorical perspective on corporate legitimacy is articulated through the use of appropriate discourses and narratives. As these are of a more general concern, this perspective is not restricted to a particular legitimation strategy. Not only is the use of precise CSR concepts and definitions key to reaching mutual understanding about CSR activities, programs and policies among stakeholders, but authenticity in messaging and stakeholder interactions concerning CSR efforts, promises and developments are also crucial for gaining and maintaining legitimacy, i.e. creating and disclosing an authentic organizational self by giving voice to employees and other stakeholders in strategy making processes through active participation (Liedtka, 2008; McShane and Cunningham, 2012). Following this argument, the crafting of messages, choosing the right media, channel and tone of voice, using valid arguments and contracting engagements in concordance with selected stakeholder target groups and communicative purposes are also important determinants for how much, or how little, legitimacy companies achieve with their CSR communication. On the surface it appears that instances of anticipation of legitimacy through the above communication practices reflect a strong – or even dominating – emphasis on pragmatic legitimacy, while elements of cognitive and moral legitimacy are limited. Pragmatic legitimacy lies, first and foremost, in the outcome-oriented, company-centric approach to using CSR communication for gaining, restoring or repairing legitimacy, while moral legitimacy is more aimed at achieving legitimacy as a result of ethical concern and reflection about the societal impact of CSR, hence the growing research interest in collaborative CSR and the role of CSR as deliberation and argumentation (Scherer and Palazzo, 2011). Cognitive legitimacy is anticipated as a result of institutionalized practices regarding CSR standards, norms and beliefs. Based on the above, the analytical framework is presented highlighting major CSR communication practices and means that are assumed to generate or enhance corporate legitimacy (Figure 1). Three legitimation moderators (1), (2) and (3) translate into different CSR communication practices and strategies. Legitimation is, for example, gained by measuring and optimizing CSR communication strategies in alignment with expectations (legitimation moderator 1). Legitimation is also gained by adopting and selecting specific agendas, methods and strategies (legitimation moderator 2). Finally, legitimation is gained by building and maintaining relationships (legitimation moderator 3). The different practices and strategies relate to either pragmatic, moral or cognitive legitimacy. Corporate social responsibility communication 501 Discussion and conclusion Below our findings are discussed in terms of main findings, limitations and implications. Main findings Arguing that the way scholars conceptualize CSR communication affects their thinking on whether CSR communication may lead to gaining and/or losing legitimacy, this study examined how corporate legitimacy is anticipated and extrapolated in CSR communication literature. The study highlighted which CSR communication practices are assumed to be most effective when bridging stakeholders’ perceptions of corporations’ social and environmental actions and the corporate CSR agenda. Legitimation moderator 1: Conforming to stakeholder demands, ideals or models through CSR communication Legitimation moderator 2: Adopting, selecting and redefining CSR communication practices and strategies CSR communication practices and strategies Measure and optimize CSR communication strategies in alignment with expectations Provide insights into stakeholders’ perceptions Adopt and redefine CSR agendas/agendasetting, methods and strategies Corporate legitimacy Conform to perceptions, frameworks, models and methods Select media, channels and rhetorical Strategies Collaborate about and deliberate common agendas, frameworks and ideals Build and maintain relationships Engage, participate and empower Scan, monitor and scrutinize public reactions Manage public issues and reactions, issues management Pragmatic legitimacy Moral legitimacy Cognitive legitimacy Legitimation moderator 3: Persuading and attracting stakeholders through impressing, denying and excusing CSR strategies and practices Figure 1. Analytical framework: gaining legitimacy through CSR communication CCIJ 23,4 To gain a comprehensive view of CSR communication literature, a systematic review was conducted resulting in the following categories of studies: perception, impact and promotion studies; image and reputation studies; performance studies; and conceptual/rhetorical studies. Addressed from a legitimacy perspective, it was found that the most important types of legitimizing communicative practices articulated in the four types of studies were related to: 502 (1) seeking knowledge about stakeholders through perception, impact and promotion activities; (2) monitoring and controlling the environment through image and reputation activities; (3) creating stakeholder value, collaboration and engagement; and (4) persuading stakeholders through rhetorics, organizational authenticity, concepts and CSR models. It was also found that practices and activities related to perceiving stakeholders’ expectations, needs and requirements are assumed to be most appropriate for corporations aiming at building or maintaining legitimacy. Our findings confirmed previous research articulating legitimacy as “a process whereby organizations seek approval for their acts from groups in society” (Kaplan and Ruland, 1991, p. 320). They add to the literature by identifying communicative practices and activities which are more effective than others in bridging stakeholders’ perceptions of corporations’ social and environmental actions (e.g. Du et al., 2010; Du and Vieira, 2012; Elving et al., 2015; Golob et al., 2013; Ihlen et al., 2011). Overall, it was found that corporate legitimacy seems to be more easily acquired when employees and other stakeholders are co-creators or endorsers of CSR communication than if it originates from corporate management alone (Morsing et al., 2008). In other words, two-way CSR communication with employees may affect a company’s legitimacy positively, while one-way communication alone may challenge legitimacy. In a similar vein, it was found that CSR messages and communication strategies may influence corporations’ acquisition of corporate legitimacy. Unless one-way CSR communication introduces and explains issues that are well supported and justified by factual information and organizational authenticity, there is a potential risk of misinterpretation by critical stakeholders who may decode CSR messages as “green,” “blue” or “pink washing,” rather than as expressions of substantiated, well-intentioned CSR acts. Not surprisingly, it was also found that CSR communication is instrumentally rather than ethically, driven – in that the most prominent role attributed by scholars to CSR communication is its assumed capacity to increase businesses’ market opportunities. Only in a very few and recent studies, such as, e.g., those addressing the expanding political role of CSR, CSR communication is framed as a platform for establishing collaborative deliberative networks and mutual understanding with stakeholders. This articulation of CSR communication is not entirely unexpected. It can be traced back to discourses and agendas initiated a decade ago by national governments and the international society, in which CSR is advanced as a win-win strategy that enables alignment of corporate and societal outcomes (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Prahalad and Hart, 2002). Following these agendas, scholars within strategic CSR management go as far as to suggest that CSR is a means of transforming social challenges into business opportunities by establishing processes of creating shared value (Porter and Kramer, 2011). Other more critical scholars contend that it is an illusion to assume that social and economic outcomes and benefits can go hand in hand, arguing that there is no evidence that CSR actually makes businesses more profitable (Crane et al., 2014; Fleming and Jones, 2013). This CSR dilemma is transposed into CSR communication research, explaining why most CSR communication literature is primarily based on traditional one-way transmission rather than a two-way dialogical perspective. Importantly, it was found that the pursuit of pragmatic legitimacy seems to predominate in CSR communication. Originating in an instrumental management approach, the concern for gaining, restoring or repairing pragmatic legitimacy through CSR communication is part of our observations above. Addressing CSR instrumentally, i.e. as a business case, is first and foremost outcome driven. Whether the outcome achieved is addressed as increased profits or legitimacy does not change the strategic intent of the legitimacy act. Pragmatic legitimacy is regarded as a prerequisite for corporate self-benefit and, thus, profit maximization. The crucial point is the conscious intentionality driving the act of seeking pragmatic legitimacy vs the unconscious intentionality embedded in cognitive legitimacy, or the pure and simple lack of corporate intentionality embedded in moral legitimacy driven by more ethical management or political and collaborative approaches to CSR (Garriga and Melé, 2004; Palazzo and Scherer, 2006; Scherer and Palazzo, 2007, 2011; Suchman, 1995). Communicatively, the dilemma outlined above is reflected in expectations of and pressure on corporations not only to launch concrete CSR initiatives, but also to communicate openly about these initiatives to and with their stakeholders. Hence, as demonstrated in our review, corporations are expected to submit information via corporate websites, CSR reports and codes of conduct, and to carefully pay attention to stakeholders’ voices, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes regarding their CSR performances. However, as pointed out in our findings, a backlash occurs as a result of “the self-promoter paradox” embedded in CSR communication, when businesses try to hide their self-interested motivations behind an alleged ethical urge to “do good.” A backlash may also occur when businesses fail to balance their words with their actions, disclosing signs of inauthenticity or evoking skepticism and cynicism leading to accusations of hypocrisy and window dressing from critical stakeholders (Christensen et al., 2013; Wagner et al., 2009). The pressure on legitimacy thus speaks for itself. However, under these circumstances the acts of gaining legitimacy are often transferred into acts of restoring or repairing legitimacy as a means for corporations to keep their “license to operate.” CSR communication, then, tends to become an issue of risk management. Looking at this risk management scenario as a communication framework allows us to gain deeper insights into the dilemma from a legitimacy perspective. The result of the backlash in CSR communication is that its contribution to corporate legitimacy is challenged. Only in situations in which promotion and morality can be sufficiently aligned – e.g. when a corporation has a strong historical record of CSR, thanks to several years of CSR practices, and/or adopts a strategy of communication in which dialogue, interaction and collaboration overrule exaggerated promotion and lofty promises – does CSR communication have the potential to enhance corporate legitimacy, whereby CSR communication can turn into an issue of collaborative stakeholder management. Limitations As usual, this investigation may have a number of potential shortcomings restricting its validity. First, our review of CSR communication is based on a sample of research articles published over the past 15 years, which is a limited period of time; i.e. it does not take into account CSR communication research published prior to 2000. Second, our adoption of a narrow set of keywords for our search, focusing on CSR communication, excluded publications that are more marginal in terms of dealing with communication problems and issues of CSR. Third, the fact that our sample is extracted from selected databases (ABI/INFORM, EBSCO’s Business Source Complete, CMMC and JSTOR) means that it does not necessarily represent the totality of potential outlets and books that publish research within the field of CSR communication. Corporate social responsibility communication 503 CCIJ 23,4 504 Implications for future research CSR communication is an emerging field that helps to expand our understanding of how CSR is addressed communicatively by both strategic management and communication scholars and practitioners. As shown in our review, the communication vantage point is addressed as a narrow discipline, conceptualizing CSR communication as a set of isolated operations and practices that may increase businesses’ market positions and the attitudes and beliefs of their stakeholders through CSR corporate messaging, channels and media monitored by managers. However, communication is also approached as a broad strategic discipline embracing CSR communication as a field of organizing, understanding, making sense of and collaborating about CSR. The broad approach to CSR communication is slowly emerging in step with new political global agendas followed by a holistic, critical and more societal trend that has appeared through the bridging of corporate and organizational communication (Christensen and Cornelissen, 2011), and through an increasing reluctance to see new capitalism as a possible framework for future growth and for businesses in society (Fleming and Jones, 2013). On the basis of this, we believe that studies within the following three areas or topics could take CSR communication research a step forward: studies that link CSR communication to a broader and more holistic concept of corporate communication and related fields (i.e. stakeholder interaction, corporate branding, public relations, etc.); empirical studies that provide more in-depth insights into the stakeholder benefits and legitimacy of CSR communication; and studies of message and media factors, e.g. the characteristics and appropriateness of channels and media for CSR messages/interaction and the appropriateness of rhetorical elements. Moreover, we believe that linking company-specific studies to the above three focus areas could increase our understanding of CSR communication as an international and intercultural issue. From a practical perspective, our findings indicate that organizations could benefit from developing their CSR communication strategies and practices in collaboration with local and global actors and stakeholders if their aim is to increase their legitimacy. It might, for example, be a good decision for organizations which are primarily one-way oriented – be it in traditional or social media communication – to rethink their CSR communication strategies aligning them to more collaborative forms and co-creative processes with their stakeholders. In the same way, our study seems to indicate that creating stakeholder value and engagement requires a dialogical approach. Finally, organizations could increase their opportunities to achieve corporate legitimacy by bonding in corporate activist processes to cope with global CSR issues and participate more proactively in joint CSR projects and solutions with the aim of enhancing the role of business in society. References Abu Bakar, A.S. and Ameer, R. (2011), “Readability of corporate social responsibility communication in Malaysia”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 18, pp. 50-60, available at: Amazeen, M. (2011), “Gap (RED): social responsibility campaign or window dressing?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 167-182. Andriof, J. and Waddock, S. (2002), “Unfolding stakeholder engagement”, in Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B. and Sutherland Rahman, S. (Eds), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility and Engagement, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 19-42. Arvidsson, S. (2010), “Communication of corporate social responsibility: a study of the views of management teams in large companies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 339-354. Ashforth, B.E. and Gibbs, B.W. (1990), “The double-edge of organizational legitimation”, Organization Science, Vol. 1, pp. 177-194. Banytė, J. and Gadeikienė, A. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility as a marketing means in Lithuanian business practice”, Economics and Management, Vol. 13, pp. 227-238. Becker-Olsen, K.L., Taylor, C.R., Hill, R.P. and Yalcinkaya, G. (2011), “A cross-cultural examination of corporate social responsibility marketing communications in Mexico and the United States: strategies for global brands”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 30-44. Bendell, J. (2010), “World review”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 40, pp. 6-25. Benn, S., Todd, L. and Pendleton, J. (2010), “Public relations leadership in corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 403-423. Bhattacharya, C.B., Korschun, D. and Sen, S. (2009), “Strengthening stakeholder-company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 257-272. Bilowol, J. and Doan, M.A. (2015), “Multinational corporations’ role in developing Vietnam’s public relations industry through corporate social responsibility”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 825-832. Bravo, R., Matute, J. and Pina, J. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility as a vehicle to reveal the corporate identity: a study focused on the websites of Spanish financial entities”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 129-146. Brennan, N., Merkl-Davies, D. and Beelitz, A. (2013), “Dialogism in corporate social responsibility communications: conceptualising verbal interaction between organisations and their audiences”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 115 No. 4, pp. 665-679. Briner, R.B., Denyer, D. and Rousseau, D.M. (2009), “Evidence-based management: concept cleanup time?”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 19-32. Burchell, J. and Cook, J. (2006), “Assessing the impact of stakeholder dialogue: changing relationships between NGOs and companies”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 210-227. Burchell, J. and Cook, J. (2008), “Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: changing relationships between companies and NGOs”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 35-46. Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. (2010), “The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 85-105. Castello, I. and Lozano, J.M. (2011), “Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 9-21. Cho, S. and Kim, C.Y. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a halo effect in issue management: public response to negative news about pro-social local private companies”, Asian Journal of Communication, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 372-385. Chong, M. (2009), “Employee participation in CSR and corporate identity: insights from a disaster-response program in the Asia-Pacific”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 106-119. Christensen, L.T. and Cornelissen, J.P. (2011), “Bridging corporate and organizational communication: review, development and a look to the future”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 383-414. Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M. and Thyssen, O. (2013), “CSR as aspirational talk”, Organization, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 372-393. Chun, R. (2005), “Corporate reputation: meaning and measurement”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 91-109. Clark, C.E. (2000), “Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: an analysis”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 363-380. Corporate social responsibility communication 505 CCIJ 23,4 Coombs, T. and Holladay, S. (2012), Managing Corporate Social Responsibility: A Communication Approach, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA. Cornelissen, J. (2011/2014), Corporate Communication. A Guide to Theory and Practice, 3rd and 4th ed., Sage Publications, London. 506 Cortini, M. (2009), “New horizons in CSP and employee/employer relationship: challenges and risks of corporate weblogs”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 291-303. Crane, A. and Glozer, S. (2016), “Researching CSR communication: themes, opportunities and challenges”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 1223-1252. Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L.J. and Matten, D. (2014), “Contesting the value of the shared value concept”, California Management Review, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 130-153. Dawkins, J. (2004), “Corporate responsibility: the communication challenge”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 108-119. Demetriou, M., Papasolomou, J. and Vrontis, D. (2010), “Cause-related marketing: building the corporate image while supporting worthwhile causes”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 266-278. Demetriou, M.M. and Aristotelous, C. (2011), “Is a bank expected to play the role of a non-profit organization? How do its stakeholders feel about it?”, Journal of Institute of Public Enterprise, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 91-108. Dobers, P. and Delyse, S. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility: discourse, narratives and communication”, Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 63-69. Du, S. and Vieira, E. (2012), “Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: insights from oil companies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 110 No. 4, pp. 413-427. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010), “Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): the role of CSR communication”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-19. Du, S., Swaen, V., Lindgreen, A. and Sen, S. (2013), “The roles of leadership styles in corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 155-169. Dubbink, W., Johan, G. and Luc van, L. (2008), “CSR, transparency and the role of intermediate organisations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 391-406. Dutta, K. and Singh, S. (2013), “Customer perception of CSR and its impact on retailer evaluation and purchase intention in India”, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 111-134. Elving, W.J.L. (2013), “Scepticism and corporate s

Do you have a similar assignment and would want someone to complete it for you? Click on the ORDER NOW option to get instant services at We assure you of a well written and plagiarism free papers delivered within your specified deadline.