Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
!!28 August 2015!!!
Public Relations Dissertation!!!!
The Role of Framing in CSR Communication: !A Comparative Frame Analysis of Unilever and Panasonic’s Environmental Messages and Their Effects on Audiences!!!!!!!
! !!!!!!Dissertation submitted for the M.A. Degree in Public Relations, University of Westminster.!!
Copyright (2015) University of Westminster and Laureline Baron.
Name: Laureline Baron
Student Number: w1507478
Course: MA Public Relations
Module: 2CPR715.Y Public Relations Dissertation
Tutors: Pam Williams/Michaela O’Brien
Statement of Originality!
!I hereby certify that I am the author of this dissertation and that no part of this dissertation
has been published or submitted for publication.!
!I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this dissertation does not infringe upon anyone’s
copyright nor violate any proprietary rights and that any ideas, procedures, quotations or
any other material from the work of other people included here, published or otherwise, are
fully acknowledged in accordance with the standard referencing practices. !
!I declare that this is a true copy of my dissertation, and that it has not been submitted for a
higher degree to any other University or academic Institution.!
!Laureline Baron!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
�2
Abstract !
!The emphasis on sustainability of the environment has become a mainstream issue for!
consumers in today’s society. In parallel, the notion of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) is becoming increasingly important for businesses, brands and organisations. The
notion of environmental sustainability has thus naturally become a major component of
companies’ strategical communication as part of their CSR programmes. However, it has
been observed that organisations providing equal efforts in terms of sustainability do not
get equal credit from the public for their environmental performances. !
!In strategic communication, frames are rhetorical devices that allow to convey a message
in a particular way to induce a particular response from the audience. In this way, frame
analysis of organisations’s green communication is a precious tool to decode the
messages intended by the organisation as well as the consumers’s responses to green
CSR communication.!
!Through a comparative frame analysis of the communication output of two organisations
promoting their sustainability as part of their CSR programme, this dissertation
investigates the role of framing in CSR communication and identifies which frameworks
are the most effective in engaging with the public.!
!The findings reveal that the use of emotional frameworks in sustainability communication
is more effective in getting credit from the public than the use of rational arguments.
However, if the study proves that emotional frameworks achieve transformational
behaviours in the short term, their effectiveness in the longer term is questioned and they
are even accused of being detrimental to getting environmental awareness and adapted
�3
behaviours from the public in the longer term. This observation then raises questions
about the legitimacy and ethics of involving framing and public relations practices in CSR
communication, which this study also discusses.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
�4
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !To NONA,!!!
the star I will always follow.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
�5
Acknowledgements !
!My sincere thanks go to Pam Williams, Michaela O’Brien and Jon Cope for their invaluable
academic teaching and support along this master and for providing me with the best toolkit
to start a (hopefully) successful career in PR. !
!I would also like to thank my lovely parents for their constant comforting support and care.!
!My dearest thanks go to my Nona, who gave me, among so many other things, the
opportunity to study this master.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!�6
Table of Contents!
!Statement of originality…..……………………………………………………………………. 2 !Abstract..………………………………………………………………………………….……… 3 !Dedication..……………………………………………………………………………….……… 5!Acknowledgements..…………………………………………………………………………… 6!1. Introduction .……………………………………………………..……………………….… 8 !
1.1. Background.………………………………………………………………..……… 8 ! 1.1.1. Corporate Social Responsibility.……………………………………… 8! 1.1.2. Corporate Environmental Performance.…………….……………… 10! 1.1.3. The Power of Framing………………………………………………… 11!
1.2. The Greenwashing Phenomenon.……………………………………………… 13 ! 1.3. Focus & Structure of the Research.……………………………………………. 15!
2. Literature review.…………………………………………………………………………… 18! 2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility………………………………………………… 18!
2.1.1. Definition……………………………………………………………….. 18! 2.1.2. CSR, Strategical Communication & Public Relations.…………….. 19!
2.2. The Concept of Framing.………………………………………………………… 20! 2.2.1. Definitions……………………………………………………………… 21! 2.2.2. Framing & Public Relations………………………………………….. 22! 2.2.3. Frames & Effects……………………………………………………… 25!
2.3. The Role of Framing in CSR Communication………………………………… 27! 2.3.1. Case Studies From Textbooks………………………………………. 27!
2.3.1.1. Framing and CSR.…………………………………………. 27! 2.3.1.2. Framing and Environmental Messaging…………………. 28!
2.3.2. Ethical Issues………………………………………………………….. 30!3. Research design.…………………………………………………………………………… 34 !
3.1. Research Questions and Hypothesis………………………………………….. 34! 3.2. Methodology……………………………………………………………………… 35! 3.3. Sampling & Content Analysis…………………………………………………… 36! 3.4. Limitations………………………………………………………………………… 36!
4. Findings……………………………………………………………………………………… 38 ! 4.1. Panasonic………………………………………………………………………… 38!
4.1.1. Dominant Frameworks in Corporate Environmental Messaging.…. 38! 4.1.2. Press Coverage………………………………………………………… 39 ! 4.1.3. Reactions from the Public……………………………………….…….. 43!
4.2. Unilever……………………………………………………………………………. 46!4.2.1. Dominant Frameworks in Corporate Environmental Messaging…… 47!4.2.2. Press Coverage ………………………………………………………. 53!4.2.3. Reactions from the Public………………………………………………. 54!
4.3. The Effectiveness of Framing: Emotions Win Over Facts……………………. 55!4.3.1. From Scholars’s View…………………………………………………… 55!
5. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………… 59! 5.1. Emotional Frameworks are not Effective in the Long Term………………….. 59! 5.2. Ethical Framing…………………………………………………………………… 61! 5.3. Implications For PR: The Legitimacy of PR Activities in CSR.………………. 64!
6. Conclusion..…………………………………………………………………………………. 68!7. References …………………………………………………………………………..……… 70 !8. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………… 77!!
�7
1. Introduction!
1.1. Background!
1.1.1. Corporate Social Responsibility!
!Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plays an increasingly major role in organisations,
brands or companies’s reputation and as Waller and Conaway (2011) point out, building a
reputation for corporate social responsibility have become a top priority for most
companies. !
!In 2015, an average of 143 articles per month in the public relations, business, marketing
and mainstream press are published on CSR. The Emarketer (leading market research
company) recently ran “Corporate Social Responsibility: Consumers seek out socially or
environmentally responsible brands and products” as a headline, claiming that “[t]oday’s
consumers expect companies to focus on more than the bottom line — addressing social
and environmental issues is also important” (Emarketer, July 2015). In March 2015, Cone
and Ebiquity published the 2015 Global CSR Study that revealed that 91% of internet
users worldwide expected companies to do more than make a profit and 84% of
respondents considered a company’s social and environmental commitments before
deciding what to buy or where to shop.!
!!!!!!
�8
For business strategist Dr. Mark Camilleri, there is an evident link between CSR and
financial performance, underlying CSR’s relevance to businesses and organisations, as it
is also suggested by many academic articles. To support his argument that “[…] CSR
requires a focus on building adaptive approaches and directing resources towards the
perceived demands of diverse stakeholders for the long term sustainability of
business” (Camilleri, July 2015), Camilleri uses examples of recent case studies like CSR
programmes by Nestlé, Google, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson and Unilever who
managed to create shared value for both the business and the society. Many practitioners
from the business and PR industry in Europe and worldwide like Ave Bie (Inside Counsel
magazine, 2015), vice President in Edelman’s Business and Social for Purpose team
Aman Singh (European CEO magazine, 2015), NV Ravindra (Hans India magazine, 2015)
and Mallen Baker (All Africa magazine, 2015) share Camilleri’s view on CSR and are
writing about it. !
!Paul Klein and Melinda Martin go even further, suggesting CSR is not only profitable but
vital to businesses’s survival when they write that “[t]he new imperative for business
leaders will be to embrace the idea that the viability of their businesses depends on solving
the world’s most pressing societal issues” in Forbes magazine (Klein and Martin, January
2015). In the same way, Rob Ashgar (Forbes magazine) writes about how CSR is moving
from optional to mandatory: “Sustainability for a business today is not a nice-to-do thing,
it’s a have-to-do thing” said Arif Naqvi, founder and group chief executive of the Abraaj
Group (Ashgar, Forbes magazine, July 2015).!
!!!!
�9
1.1.2. Corporate Environmental Performance!
!While it has been made evident that general CSR (social and environmental) is a current
and relevant topic in the PR industry; environmental issues specifically monopolise the
attention in 2015, partly because of the United Nations Climate Change Conference that
will be held in Paris from November 30th to December 11th 2015. With great focus from
the society (politicians, scientists, NGOs, etc.) on climate change and environmental
challenges, the general population today has become increasingly aware of environmental
issues in the recent years and consequently, the notion of environmental sustainability has
become unavoidable in companies’ strategic communication as part of their CSR
programmes. According to Plec and Pettenger, the business of green marketing is
booming: ‘’[v]isionary green marketing has changed the landscape of the commercial
world and taken industries by surprise’’ as ‘‘sales topped $56 billion in 2006’’ (Marty, 2007,
p. 46 in Plec and Pettenger, 2012, p.465). As for, Nyilasi et al., the “rise of green
consumers had a significant impact on CSR initiatives and corporate environmental
performance [and] [w]ithin the general CSR movement, green marketing and the need for
ethical ecological conduct of companies are now firmly established (Nyilasi et al., 2014, p.
693). Many brands and organisations build on their environmental CSR by forging
strategical alliances and sponsoring green events such as the Paris Climate Change
Conference or the Earth day as they constitute great platforms to broadcast their
commitment to protecting the environment. Brands like American Eagle Outfitters achieved
huge coverage from the press by teaming up with Brad Pitt’s Make It Right organisation
and launching a “green” Earth Day campaign. Similarly, it was no coincidence that on
Earth day week this year, Apple published its 2015 Environmental Responsibility Report
detailing the company’s commitment to “leave the world better than we found it”, earning
credit for its green performances from the public. !
�10
!This need for organisations to communicate about their CSR efforts is also made clear by
Cone and Ebiquity’s study, which shows that world-of-mouth played a huge role in
consumers choices as nearly half of respondents had told family and friends about a
company’s CSR efforts. Furthermore, the survey reported that 52% of participants assume
companies are behaving badly until they hear otherwise.!
!1.1.3. The Power of Framing!
!Statistics, articles and practitioners views from the industry context thus reveal the
undeniable importance for organisations to focus not only on their CSR performances but
also on communicating those efforts to the public, underlying the need for PR practitioners
to master CSR communication in order to reach and engage audiences effectively. !
!Among PR tools for strategic communication, the technique of framing, which consists of
using rhetorical devices to convey a message in a particular way to induce a particular
response from the audience, has been recognised as clearly influential by both scholars
and practitioners. !
!As argued by Kirk Hallahan in the International Encyclopedia of Communication, “[t]he
goals of strategic framing are to telegraph meaning and to focus audience attention on
particular portions of a message or aspects of a topic in order to gain a favourable
response [and] [f]raming is a critical element in constructing social reality because it helps
shape perceptions and provides a context for processing information” (Hallahan, 2008). As
such, scholars Benford and Snow regard frames as “a central dynamic in understanding
the character and course of social movements” (Benford and Snow, 2000, p.611),
�11
considering that frames can trigger, strengthen particular cultural values and ultimately
lead to actions. Framing has further been defined by Nelson et al. as ‘‘the process by
which a communication source constructs and defines a social or political issue for its
audience’’ (Nelson et al., 1997, p. 221). As for Volkmer, she asserts that “[k]nowledge
about framing theory is crucial for the planning of media campaigns in advertising, public
relations, and political sectors” (Volkmer, 2009). Bortree et al. considers framing as “[a] key
device that organisations use to craft effective communication” (Bortree et al., p.77). !
!In Marketing Week magazine, Nathalie Nahaï writes that “[f]or brands and MP’s, language
holds power and is key to shaping belief and behaviour” explaining that in political
discourse “[…] it’s the rhetoric, emotion and subconscious signals of power embedded in
persuasive political language that reveal likely candidates”. She concludes arguing that
“[w]ords are not merely a means of communication, they can shape our beliefs, influence
our emotions and behaviours, and ultimately lead us to certain courses of action” (Nahaï,
Marketing Week, April 2015). Also, trade magazine for the PR industry PR Week shows
how framing can be used in environmental communication, which will be investigated in
this dissertation, by analysing how the climate change message is progressing. Based on
a new study by Yale University, results conclude that the term ‘global warming’ is far more
effective than ‘climate change’ in conveying a sense of imminent peril: “‘global warming’ is
associated with greater certainty that it is happening, greater understanding that human
activities are the primary cause and a greater sense of personal threat than the term
‘climate change’” (Benaby, PR Week, April 2015). Similarly, The Guardian takes interest in
“[t]he way climate change discussions are framed [and how it] shapes everything from
who’s held accountable to what actions we take” in its article “Five ways to frame climate
change debates” published in February 2015 (Mathews, The Guardian, February 2015).!
!
�12
As argued by Hallahan in the Encyclopedia of Public Relations, “[f]raming [is] a conceptual
framework for understanding the constructions of arguments and the differential
interpretation of public relations messages by audiences” (Hallahan, 2013). In this way, not
only are frames useful to strategically convey environmental messages to audiences but
also to analyse and understand the public’s perceptions and reactions to those campaigns,
which ultimately allow PR practitioners to adapt and improve their CSR communication.!
!!
1.2. The Greenwashing Phenomenon!
!As suggested above, it is quite clear that every businesses, brands and organisations
should invest on CSR activities and on communicating them to the public. As a reminder,
Cone and Ebiquity’s Global CSR Study found that 52% of interviewees assume that
companies are behaving badly unless they hear otherwise, meaning communication on
CSR is essential.!
!However, such communication can lead to negative effects as well and damage the
organisations’s credibility due to what is called the greenwashing phenomenon and its
consequences on the public’s perceptions. !
!We talk about greenwashing when an organisation spends more time and money claiming
to be green through green PR strategies than actually implementing business practices
that minimise environmental impact. As Plec and Pettenger observe, “[c]orporate
advertising campaigns increasingly use environmental frames to promote their products
and processes, many of which are neither sustainable nor environmentally friendly […]
engaging in ‘greenwashing’ [and] concealing environmentally harmful actions with the
�13
rhetoric of environmental friendliness to entice and manipulate the consumer” (Plec and
Pettenger, 2012, p.459). For example, Walmart was pointed as worst greenwasher of the
year 2014 by environmental website Environmental Action and accused of having written
hundreds of press releases, thousands of blog posts on their sustainability whilst making
very little actual progress in reducing the environmental impact of their products. Cases of
businesses practicing greenwashing as reputational strategy to win consumers’s favour
have caused feelings of confusion and perplexity among the public about green messages
from organisations in general. In this way, as recognised by Easterling et al. (1996),
organisations that claim to be sustainable are often subject to closer scrutiny from
government, competitors, and especially consumers. And, as reported in Cone and
Ubiquity’s study, consumers are now more suspicious; watching more closely, and
sharpening their observations on CSR claims. !
!As a result, taking those greenwashing’s drifts into account, if organisations must
communicate their CSR efforts to the public, PR practitioners must take involved steps to
avoid greenwashing condemnations and be extremely careful in creating adapted and
controlled CSR content. This phenomenon then also unveil the need for the PR industry to
further examine rhetoric in environmental communication, as this dissertation intend to
investigate. !
!!!!!!!
�14
1.3. Focus & Structure of the Research!
!The aim of this dissertation is to examine the role of framing in CSR communication
through: on one hand, a theoretical part which will look at the notions of CSR, framing and
ultimately the implications of framing in CSR communication in an academic context and
which constitutes the literature review; on the other hand, through a practical part which
will lead a comparative frame analysis of the environmental messages issued by two
organisations in the year 2014 and study the role of framing in CSR put into practice in the
industry context.!
!In examining environmental communication as part of organisations’s CSR campaigns, it
has been observed that organisations providing equal efforts and performances in terms of
sustainability did not always get equal credit from the public. In this way, this study intends
to analyse the communication output of two organisations both providing equal efforts in
terms of sustainability and promoting them as part of their CSR programme, but getting
different response from the public: Unilever and Panasonic. !
!Unilever is the world's third-largest multinational consumer goods company, owning over
four hundred brands such as Axe/Lynx, Dove, Omo, Becel/Flora, Ben & Jerry’s ice creams,
Hellmann's, Knorr, Lipton, Lux, Magnum, Rama, Rexona, Sunsilk and Surf. It was chosen
because its “Project Sunlight” campaign was elected as one of the four most
transformational campaigns of the year 2014 by PR Week. According to PR Week, “[…]
the campaign has wildly exceeded expectations, with 70 million video views against a
target of 50 million and 2.7 million web hub visits against a target of 500,000” (Benady, PR
Week, November 2014). Analysing this successful campaign will allow to identify effective
and engaging frameworks in green communication. !
�15
Panasonic is a multinational electronics corporation and the world's fourth-largest
television manufacturer. It is ranked fifth in a study by Fortune and Interbrand that lists the
fifty best global green brands in 2014. The fifty companies on the Best Global Green
Brands list were ranked in two ways: on the strength of their sustainability initiatives and
on how the public perceives those efforts. The Best Global Green Brands list posts a score
for each brand that represents the gap between its overall performance score and its
overall perception score. A positive score indicates a brand is doing more than it is given
credit for, while a negative score indicates that a brand is being given more credit than its
actions merit. Panasonic had a high positive gap score. In other words, the brand is doing
a lot of impressive work to become more sustainable but is not getting credit for it from the
public. Analysing Panasonic’s communication on its sustainability will allow to detect what
went wrong in terms of framing and why it failed to engage with audiences. !
!Both CSR messages from the organisations and the interpretation of these PR messages
by audiences will be studied using the frame analysis in the aim of identifying dominant
frameworks in both communications and evaluate their effectiveness in engaging with the
public. !
!The results of the research will then be reported and the findings will be considered and
discussed, divided into the key themes that will arise from the investigation.!
!Investigating this current and relevant communication issue will give a better
understanding of the power of framing in CSR communication and of the ethical
considerations that PR practitioners must take into account when creating framed content.
Also, the evaluation of frameworks’s effectiveness in green communication will constitute a
�16
useful tool for PR practitioners to create effective and powerful CSR campaigns promoting
their client’s sustainability efforts. !
!It should be noted that the framing theory has received attention from scholars from
various disciplines over the past three decades and can be applied to an important variety
of sectors. However, this piece of research only explores framing in the context of
strategical communication and in relation to public relations and Corporate Social
Responsibility. Also, this dissertation focuses on the environmental messaging within CSR
communication from organisations. In the context of this study, the general term CSR
(encompassing both social and environmental activities) will be taken to refer to
environmental performances only. !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
�17
2. Literature review !
!The purpose of the literature review is to explore and determine, in an academic context,
the implication of message framing in public relations and more specifically in CSR
communication. To do so, this review aims at defining the framing theory, understanding its
power of influence in public relations and CSR communication as well as grasping its
impacts on the public’s perceptions. The review also discusses the legitimacy of framing
practices as part of organisations’s CSR communication and gives rise to the ethical
implications of framing practices as PR tools. !
!First, the notions of corporate social responsibility and framing are examined. Then, the
relation of influence between the two notions is explored and finally, the ethical aspect of
framing practices as part of CSR communication is discussed.!
!!
2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility!
2.1.1. Definition!
!Current thinking according to the European Commission states that:!
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to companies taking responsibility for their impact on society. As evidence suggests, CSR is increasingly important to the competitiveness of enterprises. It can bring benefits in terms of risk management, cost savings, access to capital, customer relationships, human resource management, and innovation capacity (Wood, June 2015).!!
Following to a definition by Buchholtz and Carroll (2008), the notion of CSR requires
business organisations “to encompass economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary
�18
(philanthropic) expectations that society has of organisations at a given point in
time” (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008, p.40).!
!As for Parguel et al., “[b]roadly defined, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) attempts to
achieve commercial success in ways that honour ethical values and respect people,
communities and the natural environment (Parguel et al., p.15).!
!2.1.2. CSR, Strategical Communication & Public Relations!
!The construction of CSR involves or more exactly requires strategic communication, used
by organisations to communicate their social performances to their public. Strategic
communication, in which PR plays an important role, is defined by Hallahan et al. as “the
purposeful use of communication by an organisation to fulfil its mission” (Hallahan et al.,
2007, p.3), here to communicate CSR performances to audiences. Strategic
communication is central to CSR as it is responsible for meaning creation and influence. !
!For Hallahan et al., “[m]eaning involves questions such as how people create meaning
psychologically, socially, and culturally; how messages are understood and elaborated
upon in [the audience’s] memory; and how ambiguity arises, and how it is
resolved” (Hallahan et al., 2007, p.23). Rosengren argues that meaning can be understood
as the “whole way in which we understand, explain, feel about and react towards a given
phenomenon” (Rosengren, 2000, p.59), or a given message. In this way, as Hallahan
argues, strategic communication and PR work fundamentally involves the construction of a
particular social reality for audiences (term first used by Berger and Luckmann, 1966;
Tuchman, 1978): “[…] outbound public relations communications involve attempts to
�19
define reality, at least as it relates to client organisations, for the many publics on whom
the organisation depends” (Hallahan, 1999, p.207). !
!As for the notion of influence, it is defined by Webster as “the power or capacity of causing
an effect in indirect or intangible ways” (Webster, 1988, p.620). Influence is achieved
through a process of persuasion, which involves the use of strategic communication to
promote the acceptance of ideas.!
!In order to promote its CSR activities, an organisation needs to establish a strategic CSR
communication that will determine, through meaning creation and influence, how the
organisation performances are portrayed, viewed, understood and judged by the public. As
Parguel et al. confirms, “[t]he communicated identity facet [of Corporate Social
Responsibility] —or what the company communicates to its stakeholders—has particular
importance because communicated identity serves as a nexus between the company’s
identity and image, which reflects the ‘immediate mental picture an individual has of an
organisation’ (Balmer, 2009, p.558)” (Parguel et al., 2011, p.15).!
!!
2.2. The Concept of Framing!
!Framing plays an important role in influencing and shaping how audiences perceive and
comprehend a particular message from an organisation. Kirk Hallahan argues that
“[f]raming is a critical activity in the construction of social reality because it helps shape the
perspectives through which people see the world” (Hallahan, 1999, p. 207).!
!!
�20
2.2.1. Definitions!
!There exists, according to Hertog and McLeod, a wide array of different approaches and
definitions of frames and framing study among researchers. This review intends to provide
some of those definitions, relevant to the application of framing to the PR field.!
!Sociologist Erving Goffman, among the first to explore the insights offered by frame
analysis, conceives a frame as “an interpretive schema that enables the user to locate,
perceive, identify, and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete occurrences defined in
its terms” (Goffman, 1974, p.21). He summarises the essence of framing processes with
the following: !
Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of perceived reality and make them more salient in the communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. Frames, then, define problems—determine what a causal agent is doing and costs and benefits, usually measured in terms of cultural values; diagnose causes—identify the forces creating the problem; make moral judgments—evaluate causal agents and their effects; and suggest remedies—offer and justify treatments for the problem and predict their likely effects (Goffman, 1974, p.55).!!
Frames hereby serve to “introduce or raise the salience or apparent importance of certain
ideas, activating schemas that encourage target audiences to think, feel, and decide in a
particular way” (Entman, 2007, p. 164 in Schultz et al., 2012, p.98).!
!Reese et al. propose a general definition of frames as “organising principles that are
socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure
the social world” (Reese et al., 2001, p.7). This definition implies that frames structure our
understanding of a particular social phenomena in a number of significant ways like
determining what content is relevant to the discussion (through categorisation and an �21
inclusion/exclusion process), defining the roles that the different actors of the exchange
play or giving a symbolic representation to the topic by adopting a particular rhetoric,
language use and sentence structure. !
!Lim and Jones give a more specific definition of “a frame in communication” that they
conceptualise as “a construction of reality in communication, revealing properties of
communication including symbols or catchphrases” (Lim and Jones, 2010, p. 292). They
argue that this definition is how most public relations scholars understand framing. !
!For Lundy, “the way information is framed is the way people come to understand that
issue” and framing involves the organisation and packaging of information (Lundy, 2006, p.
296).!
!Accordingly, following to Schultz et al., “framing is often regarded as cognitive structure
building that does not only organise experiences, but strategically aims at mobilising
adherents […]” (Schultz et al., 2012, p.98).!
!2.2.2. Framing & Public Relations!
!For Hallahan, implicitly, framing plays an integral role in public relations: “If public relations
is defined as the process of establishing and maintaining mutually beneficial relations
between an organisation and publics on whom it depends (Cutlip, Center and Broom,
1995), the establishment of common frames of reference about topics or issues of mutual
concern is a necessary condition for effective relations to be established” (Hallahan, 1999,
p. 207).!
!�22
Hallahan understands the framing metaphor applied to public relations practice as “a
window or portrait frame drawn around information that delimits the subject matter and,
thus, focuses attention on key elements within” (Hallahan, 1999, p. 206-207), implying that
framing thus involves processes of inclusion and exclusions as well as emphasis.!
!As Hertog and McLeod point out in their book, “[t]here is a significant and expanding
framing literature, however framing has not settled on a core theory and no widely
accepted methodological approach on frame analysis has emerged yet” (Hertog and Mc
Leod, 2001, p. 141), despite its undeniable use for public relations. Also, Shultz et al. note
that “[r]esearch in the field of public relations started only recently to empirically analyse
the interplay of corporate communications, news and perceptions of corporations (e.g.,
reputation) on a more elaborated level” (Schultz et al., 2012, p. 98). Still, a few academic
studies analysed how framing is used by public relations professionals and the news
media. Among them, Lim and Jones (2010), Lundy (2006) and Hallahan (1999). !
!Lim and Jones, in their study, intend to provide a preliminary picture of how public relations
researchers understand framing theory and apply it to their research, coming to the
conclusion that PR professionals tend to focus on how a content producer constructs a
message and neglect the audiences’ response to public relations activities. !
!Lundy wrote a study which purpose was to determine the effect of message framing on
cognitive processing by employees of an internal organisational message. The outcome of
the study showed that message framing was useful for public relations practitioners not
only for generating external messages but for communication within the organisation itself
and that Moral Norms frames (drawing on an ethical framework and communicating such
�23
sentiments as “solving world hunger is the ‘right thing to do”’ and “making the world a
better place for future generations”) seemed to be the most salient for audiences.!
!At last, Hallahan, whose study stands as “the most elaborate and prominent” (Waller and
Conaway, 2011, p. 84), mainly seeks to create a theoretical foundation on which frame
analysis can be applied to the public relations field. In his article, “Seven Models of
Framing: Implications for Public Relations”, Hallahan considers framing as “a potentially
useful paradigm for examining the strategic creation of public relations messages and
audience responses” (Hallahan, 1999, p. 205) and identifies seven types of framing
adaptable to public relations: situations, attributes, choices, actions, issues, responsibility
and news. The author considers framing as an essential tool to analyse and shape PR
messages to their public in order to examine and improve them, as framing allows to
explain the structuring of messages and the differential responses that can result from
them: “In addition to a rhetorical approach that focuses on how messages are created,
framing is conceptually connected to the underlying psychological processes that people
use to examine information, to make judgments, and to draw inferences about the world
around them” (Hallahan, 1999, p. 206). For Hallahan, the central key notion of framing is
contextualisation: !
Framing puts information into a context and establishes frames of reference so people can evaluate information, comprehend meanings, and take action, if appropriate. Indeed, the message must be imbued with sufficient clues so that people can make sense of the message and for it to be persuasive (i.e., to have an influence on people's predispositions or overt behaviours). Framing provides those clues (Hallahan, 1999, p.224).!!
In Hallahan’s opinion, framing decisions are the most important strategic choices made by
public relations practitioners, as public relations professionals “[…] fundamentally operate
as frame strategists, who strive to determine how situations, attributes, choices, actions,
�24
issues, and responsibility should be posed to achieve favourable outcomes for
clients” (Hallahan, 1999, p. 224).!
!2.2.3. Frames & Effects!
!According to Bortree et al., research on message framing has found that message
presentation can have a powerful effect on the way audiences respond to messages (Nan,
2007 in Bortree et al., 2012). Studies across disciplines have investigated the
psychological mechanism underlying the framing processes and have shown that frames
can influence people’s attitude formation and behavioural intention (e.g., Tversky and
Kahneman, 1981; Rothman et al., 1999; Lundy, 2006) considering that “[t]he way
information is framed is the way people come to understand that issue” (Lundy, 2006, p.
296). !
!Lim and Jones reckon that “[t]he question of how people interpret and understand
messages flowing from public relations agencies and news media is important” (Lim and
Jones, 2010, p. 296). But very few studies in the public relations literature show interest in
this audience frame.!
!Also, while the role of frames on cognitive processing is widely recognised and explored
by scholars (Lundy, 2006; Goodwin, Jasper and Polletta, 2001), the examination of “the
effects of frames on emotion represents an important gap in the literature” (D’Ambrosio
and Gross, 2004, p.19). According to D’Ambrosio and Gross, “[m]ost of the framing
literature has focused on the cognitive aspects of opinion, not on its affective
aspects” (D’Ambrosio and Gross, 2004, p.2).!
!�25
Benford, in his research on the Social Movement Framing Perspective, indicates that
“[f]rame analyses often manifest problems of reification - a tendency to anthropomorphise
social movements resulting in a neglect of human agency whereby human action and
interaction are stripped from the text” and that, by the same process, “[…] reification
results in a neglect of emotions” (Benford, 1997, p. 418). Benford concludes that the “[r]ole
of emotions in […] framing processes remains a relatively unexplored but potentially fertile
topic" (Benford, 1997, p. 420).!
!For Gross as well, “[…] the study of framing has focused mainly on the cognitive effects of
framing rather than on its emotional effects” (Gross, 2008, p. 169). In her study Framing
Persuasive Appeal, the author cites other work that suggest that the persuasive effect of a
frame depends on emotional reactions to that frame like research by Brewer (2001) and
Nabi (1998). According to her, “[t]hese studies […] show that emotional response may be
contingent upon how an issue is framed and that these emotional responses may mediate
the effect of frames on opinion” (Gross, 2008, p. 170).!
!In this way, as suggested by D’Ambrosio and Gross, “[b]y altering the information or
considerations available to individuals, frames may influence not only opinion but also the
emotional responses of audiences” (D’Ambrosio and Gross, 2004, p. 19). And as Gross
concludes, “[…] framing effects […] operate through both affective and cognitive channels”
(Gross, 2004, p.169).!
!!!!!
�26
2.3. The Role of Framing in CSR Communication!
2.3.1. Case Studies From Textbooks!
2.3.1.1. Framing and CSR!!!In their studies, Waller and Conaway (2011) and Schultz et al. (2012) describe how the
appropriate/inappropriate use of framing as a PR tool in CSR communication can either
save or deter an organisation’s reputation. !
!Waller and Conaway, in their paper Framing and Counterframing the Issue of Corporate
Social Responsibility: The Communication Strategies of nikebiz.com., focused on reporting
on the communication strategies, based on framing, that sports shoe giant Nike used to
successfully protect its corporate social responsibility reputation during the late 1990s. In
their article, Waller and Conaway consider that frames, by their very nature, play an
essential, universal role in corporate communication: “Frames are designed to deliberately
reconstitute selected aspects of reality surrounding deliberation of a public issue […]; [i]n
essence, a frame binds together carefully chosen ideas, information, judgments,
arguments, claims, and value statements into a tightly compressed noetic narrative that
guides the frameholder’s interpretation of events as well as discourse related to a given
topic” (Waller and Conaway, 2011, p.100). They explain how Nike successfully
counterattacked, through thematic framed messages, the injustice and identity frames
displayed by Nike’s opponents in the media to generate a strong negative emotional
reaction to the company’s outsourcing operations and the company’s labor-related issues.
They conclude with the following:!
The results of this study suggest that frame analysis might well yield important insights on how media outlets cover business news topics generally as well as how they cover specific organisations, particularly on stories involving CSR. Of course, business organisations are constantly modifying and refining their communication output in order to aggressively get their message through to the appropriate stakeholders, and to fit
�27
and function in the various media formats. Despite the multiplicity of new media channels and their fragmented hypermedia environment, frame analysis appears to afford a promising methodology with which to study the full range of CSR communication from and about organisations in the age of the Internet (Waller and Conaway, 2011, p.102).!!
In the same way, Schultz et al. looked at strategic framing in the BP crises and aimed at
conceptualising strategic framing by introducing the idea of associative frames. The crisis
situation has been chosen here “[…] because crises threaten an organisation’s high
priority goals and result in high media attention and corporate attempts to communicatively
repair organisational legitimacy” (Schultz et al., 2012, p.97). The study documented that
BP framed the crisis as an event with external causes and put little attention to these
causes, presumably to avoid responsibility attributions in the press. It allowed to analyse
that, by concentrating on the solution, BP did not take responsibility for the cause and
avoided that they could become solution providers; showing how inappropriately framed
messages in corporate communication can deter the organisation’s reputation (in contrast
with successfully framed external communication by Nike as demonstrated by Waller and
Conaway above). !
!2.3.1.2. Framing and Environmental Messaging!
!To date, very little has been done to examine the framing of environmental messages from
for profit organisations and their effectiveness in engaging the public. !
!However, recently, there have been an increasing number of studies of message frames in
the context of general environmental communications, mostly looking at the content of
messages (Plec and Pettenger, 2012; Schlichting, 2013 and Bortree et al., 2012).!
�28
In their study Greenwashing Consumption: The Didactic Framing of ExxonMobil's Energy
Solutions, Plec and Pettenger investigate on the recent efforts at green advertising by
ExxonMobil (largest international oil and gas company), focusing specially on their
television advertisements. They argue that “ExxonMobil’s use of a didactic, greenwasher
frame stifles criticism and discourages examination of ideologies of consumption by
exploiting the ethos of the scientist and highlighting technological solutions to problems
that are deeply tied to a culture of consumerism” (Plec and Pettenger, 2012, p.459).
Through a frame analysis, the authors demonstrate how ExxonMobil didactically frames its
scientific and technological superiority for a presumably passive audience and conclude by
recommending the use of counterframes to question the solutions advanced by
ExxonMobil; thus showing frames effectiveness not only as “to promote a particular
problem definition, causal interpretation [but also to allow] moral evaluation and/or
treatment recommendation for the item described” (Goffman, 1974, p.55).!
!Schlichting explored the Strategic Framing of Climate Change by Industry Actors using
framing theory to analyse 38 studies on industry actors’ s climate change communication
between 1990 and 2010. The analysis shown that industry actors used three dominant
framing strategies to define the meaning of climate change: the frame of scientific
uncertainty (by the US fossil fuel and coal industry); the frame of socioeconomic
consequences (calling upon fears of a loss of social wealth and a drawback on people’s
lifestyles) and the frame of industrial leadership in climate protection, which today
dominates across all the world regions. The author also discusses the implications for
further PR research and suggests that it would be helpful to analyse the effects of such
frames from a PR perspective to study how shifts in the industrial framing of climate
change affect corporate reputation. The latter constitutes a gap in the literature that this
dissertation intend to fill.!
�29
!Finally, Bortree et al. examine the framing of environmental messages by advocacy groups
in contrast to messages by other organisations in 30 years of environmental advertising in
National Geographic magazine. The study measures changes in the degree to which
environmental actions were framed in terms of gain for the environment versus avoidance
of ecological loss and in terms of impacting current generations versus future generations.
In addition, the study examines behavioural frames of taking less (conservation) versus
doing more (recycling, volunteering, etc.) in environmental advocacy groups’s advertising
to better understand the kinds of actions the organisations are promoting. The authors
maintain that “framing is a useful tool for advocacy groups to strategically convey their
messages to audiences […], increase audiences’s awareness of issues and influence
intentions to take actions toward solving problems”. They also cite Lakoff (2008),
concluding that “the way we frame environmental issues has important consequences for
the way the public perceives and acts on environmental issues (Bortree et al., 2012, p.
78).!
!2.3.2. Ethical Issues!
!Undeniably, public relations researchers have suggested a prominent role for framing
within public relations and corporate communication. Framing is a useful tool in strategic
communication and persuasion. However, framing practices also raise other questions and
ethical issues about the legitimacy of such framing practices in PR and corporate
communication. Some authors question the legitimacy and ethics of strategic
communication using framing techniques, considering notions of power and ideology
contest.!
!�30
Indeed, as part of what is called the study of communication effects, Bauer concluded that
there are two views regarding the idea of effects but that one is far more dominant in
practice. The first, which the author describes as the social model, is held by the general
public and by social scientists when they talk about advertising, and somebody else’s
propaganda, is one of the exploitation of man by man. It is a model of one-way influence:
“The communication does something to the audience, while to the communicator is
generally attributed considerable latitude and power to do what he pleases to the
audience” (Bauer, 1964, p.319 in Hallahan et al., 2007, p.222).!
!The second one is called the scientific model and is described as “a transactional process
in which two parties each expect to give and take from the exchange approximately
equitable values” (Bauer, 1964, p.319 in Hallahan et al., 2007, p.222). It allows influence
but, in contrast with the social model, it does not follow a linear causal model. For Bauer,
the scientific model is by far the more adequate of the two but in practice, the social model
dominates. Likewise, Grunig et al., make clear that decisions by PR practitioners in terms
of their communication must be made “with the interests of both the organisation and the
public in mind” (Grunig et al., 2002, p.472). !
!Similarly, according to Preciado-Hoyos, “stakeholder theory, which is used in many
organisations to target corporate social responsibility policies and practices, implies that
management must work to balance the interests of different groups that hold relationships
with the company” (Preciado-Hoyos, 2013, p.591) with the aim to improve the quality of
the relationship between each stakeholder group and the organisation, through
transparent communication.!
!
�31
However, for researchers like Davis and Nisbet, framing practices used in PR and PR
practice in itself as part of corporate communication are considered as one-way unethical
communication, “reinforcing a tradition of ‘top-down’ communication from experts to public”
(Nisbet, 2009, p.52). For Davis, “[f]raming is what gives public relations professionals
power to change opinions, mould ideas, and sometimes even deceive audiences […] With
this power to control a message, framing becomes a stronghold for any public relations
objective” (Davis, 2010, p.122).!
!Indeed, framing implies notion of categorisation (as Edelman puts it) and notion of power
playing a role of control on the message and consequently on the audience’s perceptions. !
!As Hertog and McLeod argue in their book, on one hand, subjective decisions are made
by PR practitioners when it comes to this categorisation, this “sorting process” (Hertog and
McLeod, 2001, p.124). As a reminder, according to Goffman, “[t]o frame is to select some
aspects of perceived reality and make them more salient in the communicating text, in
such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral
evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Goffman, 1974, p.
55). In this fashion, for Hertog and McLeod, “being able to designate ‘salience’ reflects the
social power [of PR], which lies precisely in the inclusion of certain voices in normative
social discourse and the exclusion of others” (Hertog and McLeod, 2001, p.124). !
!On the other hand, Hertog and McLeod also underline the powerful implications of the
framing process, citing Entman: “Analysis of frames illuminates the precise way in which
influence over a human consciousness is exerted by the transfer (or communication) of
information from one location — such as a speech, utterance, news report or novel — to
that consciousness” (Entman, 1993, pp.51-52 in Hertog and McLeod, 2001, p.126).!
�32
!Ihlen et al. also observe that “[a] frame is important in that it promotes a certain definition
and perspective at the expense of competing ways of understanding a particular
issue” (Ihlen et al., 2008, p. 234). The authors point out that the social construction that
takes place in frames remains invisible and hence, imply a position of power for
frameholders. They describe framing as “an ideological contest not only over the scope of
an issue, but also over matters such as who is responsible and who is affected and which
enduring values are relevant” (Ihlen et al., 2008, p. 237).!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
�33
3. Research Design !
3.1. Research Questions and Hypothesis!
!The effectiveness of framing in strategic communication is evident, as the literature review
has shown. Many scholars recognise the undeniable use of frames for PR activities and
CSR communication (Hallahan, 1999; Lundy, 2006; Lim and Jones, 2010; Waller and
Conaway, 2011; Schultz et al., 2012). However, little has been done to explore the actual
role of framing in PR messages to the public (Hertog and Mc Leod, 2001; Schultz et al.,
2012) and even less to examine the interpretation of those framed messages by the public
(Lim and Jones, 2010). Consequently, the investigation of the role of framing in CSR
communication and its effects on the public represents an significant gap in the literature,
which this dissertation attempts to fill. !
!To explore the framing of environmental messaging from organisations, the following
research questions are posed:!
!• To what extent is framing responsible for corporate environmental campaigns’s
success or failure?!
• What are the most effective frameworks in environmental communication? !
!Ultimately, the literature review also raises questions about the legitimacy and ethics of
involving framing and public relations practices in CSR communication, therefore leading
to additional research questions: !
!• Is framing ethical or is it manipulative persuasion? !
• Is the implication of framing/PR in CSR legitimate?!
�34
To answer the research questions, this study will conduct a comparative frame analysis of
the communication outputs of two organisations both providing equal efforts in terms of
sustainability and promoting them as part of their CSR programme, but getting different
response from the public: Unilever, whose “Project Sunlight” campaign was elected as one
of the four most transformational campaigns of the year 2014 by PR Week and Panasonic,
whose high positive score in the Interbrand’s Best Global Green Brands list indicates the
brand is doing more than it is given credit for. Whilst Panasonic uses a down-to-earth,
rational tone and factual information in its environmental communication, Unilever employs
emotional tone and themes to seduce its public through its corporate environmental
campaign, Project Sunlight. !
!Accordingly, the hypothesis of this dissertation is that the use of emotional frameworks in
sustainability communication is more effective in getting credit from the public than the use
of rational arguments.!
! 3.2. Methodology!
!As explained by Hertog and Mc Leod, despite the significant and expanding framing
literature, “[…] framing has not settled on a core theory and no widely accepted
methodological approach on frame analysis has emerged” (Hertog and Mc Leod, 2001, p.
141). In this way, public relations scholars have been using different methods for analysing
frames such as classification of frameworks by issue-specific/generic frames (de Vreese,
2005), moral norms/mutual benefit frames (Lundy, 2006), episodic/thematic frames (Gross,
2008), negative/positive frames (Waller and Conaway, 2011), gain/loss frames (Bortree et
al., 2012) and many other approaches of frame analysis.!
!�35
For the purpose of this study, a classification of frameworks by rational (aimed at
influencing through thoughts)/emotional (aimed at influencing through sentiments) frames
will be used. !
!Owing to the limited time frame and in order to reach an in-depth understanding of the
environmental messaging from both Unilever and Panasonic, the study adopts a
qualitative approach, led through content analysis. !
!!
3.3. Sampling & Content Analysis!
!The method adopted for content analysis will enable to examine the form, focus, function,
and motivational orientation of Unilever and Panasonic’s framing strategies. The study will
do this through an examination of different sampling:!
• Corporate publications by the two organisations as part of their green campaigns
on owned, earned and social media (websites, annual reports, press releases,
posts on social media, videos).!
• Press coverage both organisations got in the media.!
• Reactions from the public to both campaigns on social media (posts, comments,
likes, views).!
!!
3.4. Limitations !
!It is worth to mention a few limitations of this frame analysis. Firstly, it is important to note
that frame analysis and framing theory usually apply to the rhetoric of texts. However,
�36
videos being an integral part of Unilever’s corporate sustainable communication within the
project Sunlight, it has been decided that, for the purpose of this study, videos will be
referred to and analysed as being part of the global framework strategy that dominates
Unilever’s communication.!
!Secondly, it has been recognised by many scholars that framing analysis should take into
account the individuals on a case by case basis and the situation/state in which they
receive the framed message for more accuracy, but this is not in the scope of this study.
Also, it has been found that framing effects depend on predispositions meaning that the
public’s reactions and responses to frames are conditioned by both predispositions and
the information available in a given frame. Yet, this study does not take predispositions into
account. !
!Thirdly, the study is also limited by the fact that the comparative analysis solely focuses on
two organisations, which restrains the scope of conclusions.!
!Further research taking into consideration the qualities of the audience on a case by case
basis and the predispositions of this audience when measuring the impacts of frames on
the public are necessary to achieve more accurate results and draw general conclusions.
Therefore, the findings of this study should only be viewed as a starting point for further
research.!
!!!!!!
�37
4. Findings !
4.1. Panasonic!
!Panasonic’s “About Us” description, appearing on the website as well as in press
releases’s boilerplate, is 96 words long and informs that Panasonic is “a worldwide leader
in the development and engineering of electronic technologies” and that “since its founding
in 1918, the company has expanded globally and now operates over 500 consolidated
companies worldwide, recording consolidated net sales of 7.30 trillion yen for the year
ended March 31, 2013” but gives no information at all on Panasonic’s sustainability
commitments. However, in 2014, Panasonic has led no less than 44 sustainable activities
consisting of events, energy efficient “eco-products” creation (batteries for electric vehicles
or home appliances that automatically control power and water consumption to cut losses)
or environmental learning programme for kids. In 2014, these activities ranged from
holding a UNESCO World Heritage Eco Learning Program event at the Sagrada Familia
with 214 pupils and their teachers to equipping 2200 homes with solar panels in New
Zealand and from providing clean water and promoting energy conservation in Indonesian
village to supporting solar car races, making donations and organising environmental
exhibitions. !
!In addition, “recognising the impact on the environment and society through its products
and practices” (Panasonic, European Sustainability Declaration), Panasonic aims to
deliver on specified targets by March 2016 and is committed to effectively managing
natural resources and chemical substances, reducing CO2 emissions and waste,
contributing to the development of sustainable products and services, increasing the
environmental education of younger generations, achieving a recycling ratio above 99
�38
percent across its European manufacturing sites and delivering a 5 percent reduction in
waste arising relative to production.!
!Panasonic’s “Sustainability” section contains 6 462 words of detailed information about
Panasonic’s involvement and performances in protecting the environment but does not
appear on the website’s main page and is not easily accessible. This section is
complemented by the “Panasonic Sustainability Global Site” as well as by a 221 pages
sustainability report. Also, Panasonic received the following awards: the Eco Mark award
in 2012 and 2013, the Gold Class distinction, four awards in the "2013 Energy
Conservation Grand Prize” and the Deloitte China Sustainability Award. It was as well
recognised as the Industry Leader of the Leisure Equipment & Products and Consumer
Electronics Industry in the CSR category by RobecoSAM, awarded “Best company for
Sustainablility” for its Excellence in Global Economy and Sustainability product innovation,
energy solutions business and CSR programmes aimed at inculcating eco consciousness
among the public and ranked 5th in Interbrand’s “Best Global Green Brands 2014”.
Panasonic was also named again in 2014 to the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI
World), one of the world's renowned socially responsible investment (SRI) indexes for the
10th consecutive year, for its environmental management, climate strategy, operational
eco-efficiency and other environmental initiatives.
!4.1.1. Dominant Frameworks in Corporate Environmental Messaging!
!Data analysed were retrieved from the following materials: 44 press releases concerning
sustainability, corporate reports on main website and on “Panasonic Sustainability Global
Site”, Panasonic’s Sustainability Report 2014 (which describes the efforts that Panasonic
has made to contribute to society and the environment through its business activities), 11
�39
sustainability related posts on social medias (Facebook and Twitter), 20 videos on green
activities released on Panasonic’s “video portal” website. !
Panasonic Corporation’s Sustainability Report 2014.!
!The global framework that dominates Panasonic’s environmental communication is a
“Build a Better Future” frame based on concrete actions. Panasonic’s arguments are
rational and belong to the “do” sphere (as opposed to the “feel” sphere). Panasonic
concretely participates to the building of a better world and shows its engagement by
exposing what it is actually doing to protect the environment:!
With its new brand slogan "A Better Life, A Better World," based on an unchanging management philosophy that encapsulates Panasonic's vision of realising a better world globally, through its contribution to the environment and other activities, Panasonic aims to help build a sustainable future through its business operations as a public entity of society (Panasonic, Management Philosophy).!!
Frames used as part of Panasonic’s global framework are “Gain” frames appealing to
rational responsibility. For example, when enticing people to install solar panels,
�40
Panasonic’s arguments are framed as follows: “A typical 4 kW system can generate £900
per year for its owner” or “Lower electric bills can boost your home’s worth”.!
!This global framework is visible in different elements of Panasonic’s communication such
as the type of content exposed, the tone range, the vocabulary and the use of personal
pronouns; which will be described in the paragraphs below.
!Panasonic’s sustainability content is concrete, relies on proven facts and consists of
figures, percentages, graphs indicating its environmental efforts and progress; pictures or
videos of the sustainable infrastructures implemented by Panasonic and detailed plans
explaining their functioning. This type of content based on “cold facts”, requiring
consequent mental workload, has been recognised by scholars to impulse what, in
psychology, is called “cold cognition” (as opposed to “hot cognition”), which is defined by
Roiser as “the use of logical and rational thinking in cognitive processing” (Roiser, 2009, p.
179). In corporate reports, press releases and on “Panasonic Sustainability Global Site”,
the brand keeps informing about climate change, explaining why their actions are
important and how they can concretely help, presenting projects and providing detailed
instructions as well as useful tools to help the society being more sustainable in an
effective way. For example, the “Making the best use of limited resources and energy”
section gives information on the recycling process and provides with a document indicating
where people can recycle their electronic equipment. In this way, Panasonic’s
sustainability content is not always starring or even mentioning the company. !
!Through press releases, Panasonic regularly publishes results and statistics about its eco-
targets and new environmental initiatives, most of which are backed up with explanatory
pictures, graphs or videos (in 2014, videos were released alongside 20 press releases out
�41
of 44). Social media posts communicate the same type of information and content,
although to a much lesser extent as only 11 posts related to the brand’s sustainability were
published in the year 2014. Among those 11 posts, only one, on occasion of the UN’s
World Environment Day, contained an engaging and participatory element: “What does
wildlife mean to you and are you involved in any preservation projects?”. However,
because the post did not lead to any quiz, game or questionnaire, the question ended
being a rhetorical one as no one commented on the post. !
!A key element of Panasonic’s environmental communication are children, who are at the
centre of the corporation’s green activities and projects “to build a better future”:
“Panasonic corporation and UNESCO World Heritage Centre have a strategic partnership
since 2011 to raise awareness about the conservation of UNESCO World Heritage sites
and to promote sustainable growth through environmental education of the next
generation”. !
!The tone used in Panasonic’s environmental messaging is objective, cold, rational,
informative, intelligent and professional. It is not strategic and does not try to seduce the
reader but is stating facts and is being effective. For example, in videos on Panasonic’s
sustainable activities, there is no frame, no narrative, no emotions involved; they are solely
informative. They are presented just as TV news reports including similar opening
signature and settings. For instance, one of the videos shows Panasonic equipping 2200
homes with solar panels in New Zealand. The news angle to get a narrative, get emotions
and strategically get people involved in the news would have been precisely to include
people, to show people’s reactions to Panasonic’s generosity and get the credit for it.
Panasonic contents itself with showing the solar panels installation and interviewing
experts. !
�42
!Adding to Panasonic’s seriousness and professionalism, its messaging is honest and
transparent: !
[…] However, the fact is that the financial results for 2012 and 2013, Panasonic recorded substantial losses and so did not meet the requirements of society. We were unable to sufficiently provide the products and services that customers truly value, and we fully accept that this was the result of us failing to make an adequate contribution to help resolve social issues (Panasonic, Message from CEO Laurent Abadie).!!
Finally, across its communication, Panasonic uses the third person pronoun (as opposed
to the personal pronoun “We”): “Panasonic corporation today announced […]”. Another
element that results professional but impersonal and cold in its dehumanisation.!
!"Panasonic takes seriously its responsibility to support a sustainable future” said
Panasonic Corporation of North America CEO Mike Riccio, a declaration that, along with
the visual presentation of the brand’s Sustainability Report (see above), gives an overall
vision of Panasonic’s commitment to the environment as well as of the framework
dominating its communication on the matter. !
!4.1.2. Press Coverage!
!In 2014, 93 articles were published on Panasonic’s green actions and performances.
Taking into account that 44 press releases were issued that year, Panasonic gets an
average of 2,1 articles published in the press per press release. Also, only 16 out of 44
Panasonic’s green activities were covered in the press. Furthermore, those articles were
published by specialised or local press but no mainstream newspapers, which
considerably limits the audience reach. !
!�43
The fact that most articles appear in specialised and thus more technical press can be
explained by the fact that journalists increasingly use parts or whole paragraphs from the
press release to write their article and that, consequently, Panasonic’s detailed and
technical press releases were considered as too complex by journalists to appear in
mainstream newspapers. For this reason, the only press release that was took over by
mainstream newspapers and worldwide publications, getting 58 published articles, simply
titled “Fujisawa Sustainable Smart Town Goes Into Full-Scale Operation Near Tokyo” and
presented visual, concretely visible, interactive, easy to read information.!
!As a counter-example, a press release titled “Panasonic Develops Ballast Water
Management System to Help Protect Marine Ecosystems”, using detailed and complex
vocabulary, is not strategically framed as to trigger the journalists’s interest. !
!As such, it seems that Panasonic fails in its strategy to reach the public through the press
by massively communicating its environmental efforts through press releases (44 in 2014).
Also, it is evident that Panasonic chose not to communicate directly with the public through
its social platforms as the brand only published 11 environment related posts in 2014. In
the same way, the sustainability section on Panasonic’s website is not easily accessible,
which informs that it is not aimed at being easily available to the public’s knowledge.!
!4.1.3. Reactions from the Public!
!Because of the absence of Panasonic on social medias and in the mainstream press, the
public is not aware of Panasonic’s engagement and actions in terms of sustainability and
as a result, the brand remains quite unpopular (average number of likes per Facebook
post is 24,5). This observation is in accordance with Cone and Ebiquity’s 2015 Global CSR
�44
Study, which reported that 52% of participants assume companies are behaving badly until
they hear otherwise. One of the few Facebook comments on Panasonic’s post announcing
its rank in Interbrand’s Best Global Green Brands well illustrates this phenomenon: !
!As it can be observed here, Panasonic does not engage in any kind of conversation on
social media, there is no direct communication between the brand and its audience
whereas, in this case and in many others, Panasonic could have given proofs and detailed
explanations of its recycling systems. !
!Panasonic’s “green unpopularity” can also be explained by the fact that all the videos
reporting Panasonic’s environmental activities can only be viewed on the Panasonic’s
video portal website and do not appear on Panasonic’s Youtube account, which is
precisely where videos could be easily accessible to the public. !
!At last, the enormous amount combined with the seriousness of Panasonic’s sustainability
content shows professionalism and is objectively effective but can result overwhelming
and boring to the common reader, who is then deterred from taking interest into
Panasonic’s corporate performances. !
!!!!
�45
4.2. Unilever!
!Unilever’s “About Us” description, appearing on the website as well as in press releases’s
boilerplate, is 330 words long (against 96 for Panasonic) and contains Unilever’s ambitions
and promises in terms of sustainability as well as every single award or recognition
Unilever achieved so far: !
Unilever has been recognised in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Indexes for 14 consecutive years. We are included in the FTSE4Good Index Series and attained a top environmental score of 5, leading to inclusion in the FTSE4Good Environmental Leaders Europe 40 Index. In 2011 Unilever led the Climate Counts Company Scorecard and for the second year topped the list of Global Corporate Sustainability Leaders in the GlobeScan / SustainAbility latest annual survey (2012). The company is an employer of choice in many of the countries in which it operates and is seen as a symbol for innovation and leadership development (Unilever, About Us).!!
In 2014, Unilever completed 3 sustainable activities (against 44 for Panasonic) consisting
of supporting a government recycling campaign (Pledge4Plastics), sponsoring and
“helping to judge” (Unilever Media Center, October 2014) IGD’s Sustainable Future Award
and publishing its sustainable palm oil progress report. In 2014, Unilever also launched
their Project Sunlight, which is “all about making sustainable living desirable and
achievable by inspiring people, and in particular parents, to help build a world where
everyone lives well and within the natural limits of the planet” (Unilever, Project Sunlight).
By 2020, Unilever is committed to “double the size of [their] business while reducing [their]
environmental footprint and increasing [their] positive social impact” through 3 big goals:
improve the health and well-being of more than a billion people, halve the environmental
impact of their products, enhance the livelihoods of millions working across their value
chain (Unlilever’s Sustainable Living Plan). !
!Unilever’s “Sustainability” section contains 827 words (against 6 462 for Panasonic).
Unlike Panasonic’s, Unilever’s “Sustainability” section appears on the website’s front page �46
and is easily accessible to visitors. This section is complemented by Unilever’s “Bright
Future” site as well as by a 22 pages sustainability report (Panasonic’s is 221 pages long).!
!4.2.1. Dominant Frameworks in Corporate Environmental Messaging!
!Data analysed were retrieved from the following materials: 3 press releases concerning
sustainability, corporate reports on main website and on Unilever’s “Bright Future” site,
Unilever’s Sustainability Report 2014, 203 sustainability related posts on social medias (25
on Facebook and 178 on Twitter), 9 videos released as part of Project Sunlight on
Unilever’s “Bright Future” Youtube account.!
�47
The global framework that dominates Unilever’s environmental communication is an
“Inspire a Better Future” (Panasonic’s was “Build a Better Future”) frame that works
through the trigger of abstract sentiments such as fear, responsibility and hope. Unilever’s
arguments are emotional and belong to the “feel” sphere (as opposed to Panasonic’s “do”
sphere). Unilever’s aim is to inspire and motivate people to create a better future and to
adopt a sustainable lifestyle, starting by buying Unilever’s products and watching
Unilever’s videos:!
We are aiming to motivate millions of people to help create a brighter future for children everywhere through a new global initiative called Unilever Project Sunlight – and you can play a part simply by watching a short film online (Unilever, Project Sunlight).!!
Whilst Panasonic concretely participates to the building of a better world and shows its
engagement by exposing what it is actually doing to protect the environment, Unilever
shows its sustainability through its engagement to inspire people “to help build a world
where everyone lives well and within the natural limits of the planet” by making people feel
fear for the future, responsibility for taking action to protect the environment and finally
hope of a possibility to make the world a better place.!
!Frames used as part of Unilever’s global framework are “Loss” frames appealing to
irrational feelings of fear and threats. For example, when enticing people to take action
against climate change by supporting Unilever, the brand uses a framing pattern based on
fear by stating the risks of climate change “happening here and now” and having impacts
on them: !
The effects of global warming are already here. It’s not just news items such as record droughts in Sao Paolo and wild fires in California. We’re feeling it right here in the UK too with flooding and rising sea levels. Wherever it is, natural disasters have cost lives and devastated families. Climate change is happening now, but it’s not too late to make simple actions to stop climate change in the UK and around the world to build a brighter future for our planet.!
!�48
This global framework is visible in different elements of Unilever’s communication such as
the type of content exposed, the tone range, the vocabulary and the use of personal
pronouns; which will be described in the paragraphs below.!
!Unilever’s sustainability content is varied, colourful, visual, easy-to-digest, interactive and
well packaged (see Uniliver Sustainable Living Plan Report’s screenshots above). For
example, among interactive elements are the hashtag #BrightFuture which is omnipresent
on Unilever’s social medias and website as well as the “I’M IN” button that opens on the
website as a separate window in a spamming manner and drives participation to “join a
bright future” by signing up to Unilever’s newsletter: !
This type of visual and interactive content works as an incentive for audiences to dig
deeper into the content. Visual, eye catching content reduce the readers mental workload
and combined with emotional frames, impulse what, in psychology is called “hot
cognition” (as opposed to “cold cognition” explained above), defined by Brand as
“motivated reasoning in which a person's thinking is influenced by their emotional
state” (Brand, 1986, p.6).!
!Unilever’s content is mostly about didactically explaining climate change dangers (notably
in the section, “What is Climate Change” through clipart videos, animations and drawings)
and motivating people to take action rather than exposing its own environmental
performances: on Facebook, only 2 posts out of 25 communicate on Unilever’s green
�49
actions, the rest of them give easy tips to entice people to save water/energy/food and
recycle. When communicating about its support of external “non-Unilever” sustainable
cause or campaign, Unilever takes advantage of the opportunity to recall its own actions to
the public: “Unilever has pledged its support for the initiative – a campaign which
underpins the work the company is already doing as part of the Unilever Sustainable
Living Plan to increase recycling by an average of 15 per cent in our top 14 markets by
2020” or “The campaign supports the progress we have already made in this area in the
UK and beyond as part of our Sustainable Living Plan”.!
!Not only a key point as for Panasonic but the central dynamic of Unilever’s
communicational strategy are children. They are omnipresent through pictures, written
arguments and a set of 9 Project Sunlight short films displayed on Unilever’s website,
Facebook, Twitter and Youtube account. On Facebook, 14 out of 25 green posts published
in 2014 involved children: !
Making a small difference in your community can be the start of something. Why not take your kids out to plant trees? Even the smallest acorns can grow into mighty oaks.!! Or,!!Put a hop, skip and a jump back into the school run! Ditching the car and walking to school with your children is great for the environment and an activity the whole family can enjoy!!!
Whereas Panasonic included children as part of the corporation’s green activities and “Do”
engagement (for example, organising eco-teaching for schools), Unilever uses children
and unborn babies as a very efficient emotional tool to target parents by building a
communication around the fear and threat of a dark future in a polluted world left to the
children by their parents. In Project Sunlight videos, titled “Why Bring a Child Into This
World?”, Unilever films expectant parents successively subjected to sentiments of fear,
�50
responsibility and hope about their unborn children’s futures, “sharing with us their doubts
and their view on how to lead the way towards a #BrightFuture”, with the aim of “inspiring
us all to see the future in a more positive and optimistic way”. Whilst Panasonic’s videos
show actual environmental actions led by the corporation, Unilever inspires to act, believes
in a better world but none of Unilever’s green initiatives appear in its films. !
!As a Youtuber comments on Project Sunlight videos,!
!The tone used in Unilever’s environmental messaging is straightforward using simple,
easy to read vocabulary. It is also strategic, seductive through its storytelling, using a
sophisticated interface (with green bold titles and rainforests's pictures) and catchy
headers (“We can win the battle against deforestation”). The Project Sunlight videos are
particularly representative of Unilever’s powerful and strategic storytelling. Using an
impressively soppy tone and a melancholic piano piece, Unilever manages to create “an
incredibly moving video that takes expectant parents on a journey from being scared to
hopeful about their unborn children's futures” (Branson, Virgin, 2014). The aim here is to
touch and involve as many parents from all over the world as possible. To achieve this
goal, Unilever develops two main tactics in its videos: a filming device that allow to “create
the connection” with the viewers (for the form) and a subject that touches people
worldwide (unborn babies and expectant parents), keeping it “politically correct” not to risk
to lose anyone in the process (for the substance). !
!
�51
The first tactic is clearly explained by Unilever in a “Behind the Scenes” video and consists
of using a device that allow the expectant parents to look directly into the camera whilst
seeing and actually talking to the interviewer, and “talk to all of you” at the same time,
making eye contact feel real for the viewers during those interviews so that they feel
touched and involved. !
!The second tactic is to keep “politically correct” in order to reach and engage as many as
possible given that the campaign is launched in five different countries. To do that, Unilever
made 5 different featured sets of videos targeting India, the US, Brasil, Indonesia and the
UK. Some videos do not vary from one set to another whereas some others are
specifically adapted to the country’s culture, values, habits and featuring couples from that
particular ethnic background. For example, one of the “Why Bring a Child Into This World”
interviews featuring a lesbian couple appears in the Brasilian set, the UK set and the US
set but not in the Indian and Indonesian sets. Also, there is no homosexual male couple in
any of those sets. Is it too risky? Or is it safer, to keep up the emotion, to show the actual
baby belly that allows the inevitable close-up on the mother’s hand touching her unborn
child in a protective gesture?!
!Finally, across its communication, Unilever uses the personal pronoun “We” (as opposed
to Panasonic’s third person): “We at Uniliver believe that together we can create a brighter
future for our children”. Another element that results involving and engaging.!
!To sum up Unilever’s framing in one word,!
!�52
4.2.2. Press Coverage!
!In 2014, 10 articles were published on Unilever’s green actions and performances. Taking
into account that only 3 press releases were issued that year, Unilever gets an average of
3,3 articles published in the press per press release (against 2,1 for Panasonic). Unlike
Panasonic’s, Unilever’s press releases are strategically framed with catchy headers and
statistics, ready to appear as is in the news: ““Don’t bottle out of recycling,
PLEDGE4PLASTICS instead” or “Unliever’s european food business reached 100%
traceable, certified sustainable palm oil”. !
!However, Unilever benefited from a much greater exposure in the media in 2014 thanks to
a strategic partnership with The Guardian and the popular success of the Project Sunlight
videos. !
!Unilever sponsored The Guardian’s “Live Better Challenge”, which ensured the brand a
press coverage of 15 articles in 2014, all of which were published by The Guardian except
for one by PR Week.!
!As for the Project Sunlight videos, they attracted nearly 10 500 new subscribers to
Unilever’s Youtube channel (that is an increase of 500%) and arose the interest of the
press with 193 news items in UK and international press mentioning the campaign in 2014.!
!Given the very small number of Unilever’s press releases (only 3 in 2014, as opposed to
44 for Panasonic), it is evident that Unilever’s global communicational strategy is the direct
communication with the public through its social medias platforms (strong presence and
activity on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube; use of a hashtag; social platforms accessible
�53
from the website; Twitter feed visible on website), skipping journalists as intermediaries to
reach and engage its audience. !
!4.2.3. Reactions from the Public!
!As estimated by PR Week who elected “Project Sunlight” one of the four most
transformational campaigns of the year 2014, Unilever’s strategic framing and direct
communication with the public are hugely successful:!
[…] the campaign has wildly exceeded expectations, with 70 million video views against a target of 50 million and 2.7 million web hub visits against a target of 500,000” (Benady, PR Week, November 2014).!
!Unilever’s environmental corporate communication can thus be considered as successful
and popular among the public, achieving an average of 240 likes per green Facebook post
(against 24,5 for Panasonic) and 355 likes per Project Sunlight video. Viewers’s comments
on videos are mostly positive (“Why am I crying?!?!?!?! Love this”; “Our kids are our future.
Thanks Unilever”) and only a few condemn Unliver’s communicational practices:!
!!!!!!
�54
4.3. The Effectiveness of Framing: Emotions Win Over Facts!
!The outcomes of the comparative analysis of Panasonic and Unilever’s framing techniques
in corporate environmental communication reveal that strategic framing based on
emotional frames (feel sphere) is more successful in getting credit from the public than
framing based on rational, factual frames (do sphere).!
!4.3.1. From Scholars Views!
!Required [for persuasion] is a thorough acquaintance with all the emotions with which nature has endowed the human race. . . . For everyone knows that the power of an orator is most manifest in dealing with people’s feelings, when he is stirring them to anger or to hatred and resentment, or is calling them back from these same emotions to mildness and compassion.!
—Cicero, De Oratore!
!In their research on the role of emotions in persuasion, DeSteno et al. remind that in
ancient times already “Marcus Tullius Cicero, echoing the sentiments of even earlier
rhetoricians (e.g., Aristotle, On Rhetoric), admonished the orators of his day to appreciate
the power of specific emotions in the art of persuasion” (DeSteno et al., 2004, p.44).
According to the authors, “[i]t was through manipulations of emotions such as anger,
despair, and hopeful compassion, many classical orators argued, that opinion could be
swayed most effectively [and] [a] person who gained mastery both in the evocation of
emotion and in the emotional framing of argumentation was believed to be among the
most successful practitioners of persuasion (Cicero, De Oratore, trans. 2001; Kennedy,
1994)” (DeSteno et al., 2004, p.45). In their paper, DeSteno et al. affirm that their
experiments provide additional findings to “the nascent corpus of work demonstrating the
�55
fact that, and processes by which, specific emotional states can influence
persuasion” (DeSteno et al., 2004, p.54).!
!Ray et al., in their research on emotion and persuasion in advertising published in 1982,
agree and identify four reasons (based on previews studies on the matter by Ittelson
(1983), Posner and Snyder (1975), Broadbent (1977), Kroeber Riel (1979), Bower and
Cohen (1982), Kahneman (1973), Paivio (1978) and many others) why affective
advertising may prove to be more effective advertising, no matter what the content or
situation: people pay greater attention to affective advertising, affect enhance the degree
of processing, affective executions lead to more positive judgments of the advertised
message and affective executions may be remembered better. Therefore, as the authors
conclude, “affective advertising may, in many situations, be more effective because it is
attended to more, processed more, evaluated more favourably, and remembered
more” (Ray et al., 1982, p.3); which all should lead to a more favourable evaluation of the
advertised brand. Ray et al. also found that “the real gains from affective advertising may
be even more direct: the liking for the ad may get conditioned onto the brand itself and
form an important component of the attitude to the advertised brand” (Ray et al., 1982, p.
9). !
!Linguistic advisor and expert in political communication Dr. Luntz also argues that it is how
people feel, rather than what they think, that is the key to changing people’s minds. In fact,
as Marketing Week reported, a study by Smith et al. published in the Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology last year “found that people who used more abstract (versus more
concrete) language across a set of seven experiments were consistently perceived by
others as more powerful […] [w]hether because it reflected a general style of abstract
�56
thinking or a willingness to judge, the abstract speaking style employed by this group had
a real and tangible effect on those appraising them” (Nahaï, Marketing Week, July 2014).!
Smith et al., in their study, describe this phenomenon in further details; an explanation that
could be applied to Unilever’s communication and serve as a clarification of its success: !
!Though thought processes are sometimes considered unobservable, these cognitive effects of power can lead to different outputs that are visible to perceivers. A major example of this is linguistic communication: When discussing a topic, a speaker may express information either in a more concrete way that provides many details and emphasizes specific actions or features or in a more abstract way that captures a topic’s overall gist or meaning. For example, a speaker discussing a massive earthquake might state either that 120 people died and 400 were injured (a concrete statement conveying specific details) or that the earthquake is a national tragedy (an abstract statement conveying higher level meaning). Consistent with a general power–abstraction relationship, several studies have revealed that those high in power use more abstract language than those low in power. Abstract language may therefore serve as a power signal, with people expecting those higher in power to speak more abstractly, and consequently perceiving people who speak more abstractly as more powerful. Furthermore, beyond a mere association, abstract language reflects a more removed, “outside” perspective, and is highly linked with psychological distance (Trope & Liberman, 2010). This style of speech fits our expectations of the powerful: We expect powerful people to be outside and above things, rather than in the midst of them (Giessner & Schubert, 2007). When people use abstract language, they communicate that they are removed from the action and able to distill the gist or essence of the situation, instead of focusing on the concrete actions that would be most salient if they were “on the ground.” This ability to see the big picture is something we expect of those with power; as such, abstract language should serve as a power cue. Moreover, one aspect of many types of abstract speech is that such speech confers judgment (Maass, 1999; Maass, Salvi, Arcuri, & Semin, 1989). Abstract language, relative to concrete language, moves further away from specific, objective, immediate physical details. To move away from these details, the speaker must make judgments about the broader meaning or implications of the situation, the broader goals of the actor or actors, and the like (Smith et al., 2014, p.42).!!
As for Westen et al., they reveal that “emotional pulls dominate judgement and decision
making in high-stakes, emotion-laden political situations, generally overriding even
�57
relatively strong cognitive constraints” (2007: 691). In other words, people’s grasp of the
facts is not irrelevant, but their feelings are more important in shaping their judgements on
such issues.!
!A 2010 WWF’s report, Common Cause: The Case for Working with our Cultural Values,
also argues that “[i]n making judgements, feelings are more important than
facts” (Crompton, 2010, p.18) claiming that facts are of limited value in influencing people’s
judgement on global issues.!
!According to PR scholars Pfau and Wan (2006), there is growing appreciation of the
integral role that emotion plays in influence in the public relations literature. For them,
affect, above and beyond mere cognition, exert sizeable impact on human perception.
Also, they found that the fact that affect can function wholly independently of conscious
thought makes it a useful tool in the arsenal of influence and they suggest PR campaigns
could use such messages based on affect to stress “emotional quotient”, triggering
happiness, pleasure, warmth or other feelings, which would produce a positive impact on
consumer behaviour.!
!Finally, in their book, Les Binet and Peter Field also recommend that brands move away
from one-message-marketing and instead try to connect with consumers on a more
emotional level. They say “emotionally based campaigns… outperform rational campaigns
on every single business measure” (Binet and Field, 2011), which opens the door for
communicating the environmental and social messages that might previously have been
considered ‘too much’.!
!!!!�58
5. Discussion !
!The study has proven that emotional frames get powerful results and influence
transformational behaviour in the short term. But their effectiveness in the longer term is
questioned and they are even accused of being detrimental to getting environmental
awareness and adapted behaviours from the public in the long term. This observation
raises questions about the ethics of framing, the legitimacy of its use in CSR
communication and more generally, the legitimacy of involving PR activities in CSR.!
!5.1. Emotional Frameworks are not Effective in the Long Term!
!As acknowledged by Crompton, “[t]he understanding, of the limitations of the presentation
of facts [and of the effectiveness of affect], is something that effective advertising people,
public relations experts and politicians, have long recognised and incorporated into their
communications and campaign strategies” (Crompton, 2010, p.18). However, Crompton
forewarns that “when applied to social or environmental campaigning, there is a need to
adopt far higher levels of responsibility for the side-effects that a campaign has in
promoting particular values” (Crompton, 2010, p. 19).!
!Indeed, one of the concerns that PR practitioners should have about emotional
communication’s environmentally damaging side effects is its effectiveness in the long run.!
!
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), established by Petty and Cacioppo (1986), is a
widely used dual-processing model of persuasion, which “describes attitude change via
persuasive information processing as a consequence of either high or low cognition (i.e.,
level of elaboration), via central and peripheral processing routes as determined by a
�59
critical stage of influence” (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986 in Lazard and Atkinson, 2014, p.5).
Central processing involves effortful thinking and critical evaluation of the message against
prior knowledge and experience; in this case persuasion depends on the issue-relevant
arguments presented (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; Petty et al., 2009). Here, the information
is appealing to ration. Conversely, peripheral processing is “less effortful and does not
involve careful consideration of messages, a pattern attributed to low motivation or ability
to process the message” (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986 in Lazard and Atkinson, 2014, p.5); in
this case persuasion depends on issue-irrelevant cues in the message. Those cues
include information appealing to emotion as well as visual content.!
!According to Montoro-Rios et al., “[w]hen motivation and ability are high, the consumer
consciously and meticulously analyses the information [contained in a corporate
message], giving more priority to thoughts about the brand (central route) than to
secondary factors (peripheral route) in the message” (Montoro-Rios et al., 2008, p.547). !
!In her paper on How Emotion Influences Attitudes and Persuasion, Erin Long-Crowell
claims that “[t]he peripheral route to persuasion […] uses surface characteristics to trigger
mental shortcuts, such as emotions [whereas] [t]he central route to persuasion […] uses
logical arguments” (Long-Crowell, 2014, p.49). In this way, whilst the peripheral route to
persuasion is processed through a “motivated reasoning in which a person's thinking is
influenced by their emotional state” and relies on hot cognition (dominating Unilever’s
communication); the central route to persuasion is processed through cold cognition and
“the use of logical and rational thinking” (dominating Panasonic’s communication). !
!It has been established by Petty et al. (2009) that attitudes that follow from central
processing are often more enduring, incorporated in the long-term memory and resistant to
�60
change as the individual has used considerable resources to reach this view, involving
logic and critical analysis through cold cognition. Conversely, while the peripheral route is
powerful for attitude formation, these attitudes are less enduring and less likely to
withstand counter-persuasion attempts as they result from automatic, rapid and led by
emotion hot cognition process, which consequently causes biased and low-quality decision
making. As well, further analysis by Montoro-Rios et al. demonstrates that “one of the most
influential factors on information processing is the consumer's level of involvement [and
that] [w]hen the level of involvement with a product is high, consumers pay more attention
to the brand’s messages and are more motivated to process the message in depth, which
corresponds to the central route rational process of persuasion” (Montoro-Rios et al.,
2008, p.549). In the case of environmental communications, Montoro-Rios et al. found that
a situation of high involvement, when consumers process the information through the
central route, is required in order to improve the beliefs and attitudes of consumers
towards the brand.!
!Subsequently, it can be concluded that central route processing persuasion messages
(rational framing) lead to more resistant and deeper persuasion, even if it is recognised
that peripheral route processing (emotional framing) is powerful in inducing attitudes
formation, however more fragile and ephemeral.!
!!
5.2. Ethical Framing!
!The outcome of the study showing that the use of emotional framing in corporate
environmental communication is more powerful in getting credit from the pubic than the
use of rational framing but is less effective in the long term and thus, ultimately less
�61
beneficial to the protection of the environment, indicates the need for PR practitioners to
take responsibility for the practice of ethical framing in CSR communication, avoiding
damaging “side-effects”. !
!As discussed in the literature review, some authors question the legitimacy and ethics of
strategic communication using framing techniques, considering that with this power to
control a message, framing becomes “a stronghold for any public relations
objective” (Davis, 2010, p.122), reinforcing “one-way unethical communication” (Nisbet,
2009, p.52). Unilever’s general framework, taking the audience’s feelings hostage through
powerfully moving frames in its videos, is a representative example of framing techniques
used as asymmetrical persuasion. Volkmer also reminds that “framing theory is, for
example, utilised by spin doctors for the tailoring of a political issue in election campaigns
for a specific audience” (Volkmer, 2009, p.1435). In The Guardian, Mathews warns that
“[i]n the case of climate change, framing abounds as CEOs, politicians, NGOs and many
more besides vie to frame the debate to suit their agendas — not always with the best
environmental outcomes in mind [and that] even when their intentions are good, they can
remain unknowingly trapped in frames” (Mathews, The Guardian, February 2015).!
!Pfau and Wan argue that persuasion is intrinsic to public relations activities (among which,
framing) aimed at external publics, such as CSR communication. However, for them, “the
controversy over whether public relations should operate from an asymmetrical or
symmetrical model is misguided [and] although both asymmetrical and symmetrical
approaches are needed, depending on the circumstances, persuasion continues to be an
essential function of contemporary public relations, especially in campaigns to establish
change and reinforce an organisation’s image […]” (Pfau and Wan, 2006, p.88). They also
claim that public relations literature have traditionally recognised a key role for persuasion
�62
in PR activities (Barneys, 1923; Jones, 1955; Grunigs, 1990; etc.). As Crompton agrees,
“[a]ll communication invokes particular frames and therefore exerts some influence on
people’s values” (Crompton,2010, p.59). Indeed, persuasion does not always corresponds
to unethical manipulation and can lead to positive outcomes as feedbacks from Unilever’s
Project Sunlight videos demonstrate:!
Everyone needs to watch this and be inspired. Marketing is usually selling us things we don’t need. Once in a while, marketing tugs at our heart strings with an authentic message. Well done Unilever! If you change your perspective just a little bit, you get a whole new picture.!!
Nonetheless, by exposing the dangers of framing techniques’s damaging side effects on
the CSR campaign’s ultimate goal (here, counter-effectiveness in achieving long term
environmentally friendly behaviours in favour of the company’s short term reputational
success), the results of this study show the need for PR practitioners to adopt ethical and
responsible framing practices. !
!If the necessity for PR practitioners “[not] to flood the public with as much sound data as
possible on the assumption that the truth is bound, eventually, to drown out its
competitors” (Kahan, 2010, p.297) but instead to “tailor campaigns or communications
[that empathetically] appeal to the values of a particular audience segment” (Crompton,
2010, p.19) is evident, it should be clarified that “none of this is to suggest that
campaigners can afford to be slap-dash with the facts of their case [and that] factual
accuracy is, of course, an ethical imperative” (Crompton, 2010, p.19).!
!In this way, as Crompton suggests,!
[…] [o]rganisations should lead the way in openly discussing the values that a campaign or communication seeks to activate, presenting for public scrutiny both the evidence that these values will help to achieve the aims of that campaign, and the ways that the frames they deploy will help to strengthen these values. The
�63
activation of particular frames should then be justified through open reflection on the aims of the communication or campaign […] Such reflection could be presented as a dedicated section in a report, or a page on a website, or a section in an annual accountability report. But this text should make clear:!
• the overall aims of the campaign;!• the frames and values that the campaign seeks to promote; and!• the rationale for promoting these frames, presenting the evidence that these deep frames, and the values they promote, will help to achieve the campaign targets.!
(Crompton, 2010, p.60).!
!!5.3. Implications For PR: The Legitimacy of PR Activities in CSR!
!The outcome of the analysis comparing Unilever and Panasonic’s CSR communication,
which clearly shows that emotional frames are more effective in getting credit from the
public than rational frames, demonstrates at the same time that PR techniques
(storytelling, packaging of the information) in CSR is more effective in getting credit from
the public than exposing untreated facts without involving PR strategies. !
!Nevertheless, echoing the ethical questions around framing discussed earlier, this
conclusion raises crucial ethical questions and much controversy among scholars. Should
PR be implicated at all in CSR communication?!
!From a rational, objective point of view, it is evident and fair that companies should not use
communicational strategies to brag about their social or environmental performances,
which should simply appear as factual information and be available to the public through
corporate communication instruments like CSR reporting, publication of ethical codes or
websites (in the Panasonic’s manner). In this view, many accuse CSR of being “a good
marketing strapline” (Booth, City A.M., 2015). In an article about Why Businesses Do Not �64
Need Corporate Social Responsibility to be Ethical, Booth warns that “CSR can be
corporate window dressing designed to improve a company’s image, sales and
profitability” (Booth, City A.M., 2015). CSR has also been recently criticised as a form of
greenwashing and was defined as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the
environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or
service” (TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, 2009 in Park et al., 2013, p.1).!
!However, the simple principle “do good and let other talk about it”, long followed by
companies, is no more applicable to a social media dominated environment where brands
are increasingly becoming original content publishers, telling their own stories on social
media and excluding any involvement by journalists. According to Colin Byrne, CEO of
Weber Shandwick UK, brands are now increasingly part of the entertainment business
rather than belonging to the marketing business. That’s why creating compelling content
that really engage and retain the attention of the audience (through PR instruments such
as videos and direct communication on social media, in Unilever’s manner) is now a
priority for PRs. !
!Paguel el al. also argue that the use of PR instruments in CSR has been rapidly growing in
the recent years, along with its effectiveness in providing “a corporate tool that can build a
strong corporate image and reputation and achieve social legitimacy” (Parguel et al., 2011,
p.16). The scholars also insist on the fact that CSR communication has to be “easily
accessible, comprehensible, persuasive and minimise cognitive requirements for
consumers” (Parguel et al., 2011, p.17) in order to be influential.!
!Nevertheless, the involvement of public relations in CSR, and especially corporate
environmental communication, remains complex to handle and to put into practice in an
�65
ethical manner as confirmed by the CIPR and PRSA ’ s documents that provide 1 2
foundation for the study of best practices in environmental communication and public
relations. Both “reference the difficulty of environmental communication and advocate for
practitioners to become aware of the specific legal and ethical concerns that come with
this type of communication” (Hickerson and Bsumek, 2013, p.2).!
!In conclusion, as Galloway and Lynn suggest, “public relations needs workable responses
to assist both the clients it advises and the standing of the profession itself [to tackle]
climate change and its impacts, which have reached a critical point, fuelled by increasingly
acute concerns” (Galloway and Lynn, p.2). One initiative in this direction is to achieve
responsible, open and transparent communication with the public (as recommended by
Crompton in the previous chapter) in line with public relations professional institutes such
as the PRSA and CIPR’s best practice guidelines for environmental sustainability
communications, a term “encompassing organisations’ communications in response to
stakeholder demands that they operate sustainably in the light of climate change
impacts” (Chartered Institute of Public Relations, 2008 in Galloway and Lynn, 2003, p.2).
Another initiative needed to reach such ethical practice of PR in corporate environmental
communications is teaching environmental communication to public relations students at
university, as recommended by Hickerson and Bsumek (2013) who discuss “one possible
way for public relations educators to address the need for more training and education in
the area of environmental communication”:!
!With the growth of green has come the growth of green public relations. The students we have in class today will be asked by future clients to create green messages, develop green campaigns, and respond to the myriad environmental
�66
The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is the professional body for public relations practitioners 1
in the UK.
The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is a nonprofit trade association for public relations 2
professionals headquartered in New York City.
concerns of stakeholders. In short, today’s public relations students will be practicing their craft in a communications environment that is characterised by “an increasing level of communications around [environmental] sustainability” (CIPR, 2007). Yet, most of our students will have no environmental education. A lack of knowledge in this area could cause them to commit greenwashing, not out of malice, but due to ignorance (Hickerson and Bsumek, 2013, p.2).!!
The implementation of environmental PR education combined with the fact that the rise of
social media increases the reputation risk for companies meaning that, “in this newly
defined environment, organisations quite simply have nowhere to hide, […] they are
constantly under scrutiny and their customers are able to talk back” (Brown, 2009, p.72),
forcing them to apply a transparent behaviour and a full disclosure principle and providing
with the opportunity “to rid the PR industry of its unethical practitioners” (Brown, 2009, p.
74); ethical practice for future environmental public relations and the end of manipulative
greenwashing are definitely conceivable. !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
�67
Conclusion!
!This dissertation has focused on the role of framing techniques in CSR communication. It
represents an attempt to investigate, in both the academic and industry contexts, into the
effectiveness of framing as a PR tool in corporate environmental communication. !
!A comparative framing analysis of the green communication outputs of two organisations
was conducted in order to understand to what extent the implication of framing and the
type of frames in use were responsible for the brand’s success/failure in achieving credit
and engagement from the audience. !
!The results showed that framing did play a crucial role in determining consumer’s
response to corporate messaging and indicated that emotional framing was more effective
than rational arguments in getting credit from the public. However, research also revealed
emotional framing’s damaging side-effects as, if it is powerful in the short term, emotional
framing is inefficacious in the long term, thus favouring the company’s short term
reputational success in detriment of environmental messaging’s ultimate goal of durably
getting environmental awareness and adapted behaviours from the public. !
!These findings unveiled ethical issues around framing techniques and questioned the
legitimacy of PR activities as part of CSR communication; subsequently pointing out at the
need for PR practitioners to adopt ethical and responsible framing practice as part of
environmental communication as well as the necessity to implement environmental PR
teaching in universities. !
!
�68
In this way, future environmental public relations should be able to combine ethics and
effectiveness in their framing by reaching a balance between cold facts and heavily
emotional frames and developing a communication that could merge factual performances
with effective storytelling; managing to create what CSR is all about: shared value for both
the business and the society.!
!Further research might consider digging into the fact that companies are increasingly
becoming original content publishers, engaging in direct communications with their public
(as pointed out by Byrne) and into the consequences for environmental PR. As well, in the
same direction, it would be relevant to research the positive/negative impacts of using
social medias (where companies would tell their own stories) to convey environmental
messaging. !
!There also needs to be more detailed research carried out in environmental PR education
following the steps of Hickerson and Bsumek (2013).!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
�69
References!!Ashgar, R. (2015). How Corporate Social Responsibility Is Moving From Optional To Mandatory. Forbes Magazine. July 2015. [online] Available from: < http://www.forbes.com/sites/robasghar/2015/05/07/how-corporate-social-responsibility-is-moving-from-optional-to-mandatory/> [Accessed 7 July 2015].!!Ave, B. (2015). The power of good and corporate social responsibility. Inside Counsel magazine. April 2015. [online] Available from: < http://www.insidecounsel.com/2015/04/27/the-power-of-good-and-corporate-social-responsibil> [Accessed 14 April 2015].!!Baker, M. (2015). Ethiopia: Corporate Social Responsibility. All Africa magazine. May 2015. [online] Available from: < http://allafrica.com/stories/201505131475.html> [Accessed 13 April 2015].!!Benaby, A. (2014). Game changers: the campaigns defining the future of the comms industry. PR Week. November 2014. [online] Available from: < http://www.prweek.com/article/1321757/game-changers-campaigns-defining-future-comms-industry> [Accessed 11 April 2015].!!Benaby, A. (2015). Climate change update: What’s in a name? Quite a lot, it turns out. PR Week. April 2015. [online] Available from: < http://www.prweek.com/article/1341906/climate-change-update-whats-name-quite-lot-turns> [Accessed 13 April 2015].!!Benford, R. (1997). An insider's critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry. 67, 409-430.!!Benford, R. and Snow, D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology. 26, 611- 639.!!Binet, L. and Field, P. (2011). Marketing in the era of Accountability. Northwestern University: World Advertising Research Center.!!
�70
Bortree, D.; Ahern, L.; Dou, X. and Nutter Smith, A. (2012). Framing environmental advocacy: a study of 30 years of advertising in National Geographic Magazine. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 17 (2), 77–91.!!Booth, P. (2015). Why Business Don’t Need “Corporate Social Responsibility” to be Ethical. City A.M. June 2015. [online] Available from: < http://www.cityam.com/216890/why-businesses-don-t-need-corporate-social-responsibility-be-ethical>!!Brand, A. G. (1986). Hot cognition: Emotions and writing behaviour. JAC. 6, 5-15.!!Branson, R. (2014). The Power of Storytelling. Virgin. May 2014. [online] Available from: < http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/the-power-of-storytelling > [Accessed 12 May 2015].!!Brown, R. (2009). Public Relations and the Social Web. UK: KoganPage.!!Buchholtz, A.K. and Carroll, A.B. (2008). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder!management. 7th ed. Mason, OH: Southwestern Cengage Learning.!!Camilleri, M. (2015). CSR2.0 — The Corporate Sustainability & Responsibility Agenda. Business2Community. July 2015. [online] Available from: < http://www.business2community.com/social-business/csr2-0-corporate-sustainability-responsibility-agenda-01260622 > [Accessed 1 July 2015].!!Cone Communications and Ebiquity Global (2015). 2015 Global CSR Study. Research & Insights.!!Crompton, T. (2010) Common Cause: The Case for Working with our Cultural Values. WWF. [online] Available from: < www.wwf.org.uk/change. > [Accessed 7 April 2015].!!D’Ambrosio, L. and Gross, K. (2004). Framing Emotional Response. Political Psychology. 25 (1), 1-29.!!
�71
Davis, A. (2010). Merging Through Media: Analyzing Public Relations Framing and Ethics through the 2010 Ticketmaster-Live Nation Merger. The Elon Journal of Corporate Communications. 1 (2), 121-127.!!DeSteno, D.; Petty, R.E.; Rucker, D.D.; Wegener, D.T. and Braverman, J. (2004). Discrete Emotions and Persuasion: The Role of Emotion-Induced Expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86(1), 43-56.!!Emarketer (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility: Nice Guys Finish First. Emarketer. July 2015. [online] Available from: < http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Corporate-Social-Responsibility-Nice-Guys-Finish-First/1012761> [Accessed 22 July 2015].!!European CEO (2015). Corporate social responsibility: the ultimate marketing tool. E u r o p e a n C E O m a g a z i n e . F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 5 . [ o n l i n e ] Av a i l a b l e f r o m : < http://www.europeanceo.com/home/corporate-social-responsibility-the-ultimate-marketing-tool/ > [Accessed 15 April 2015].!!Galloway, C. and Lynn, M. (2008). Public Relations and climate change impacts: Developing a collaborative response. PRism. 5 (1-2): 1-17.!!Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.!!Gross, K. (2008). Framing Persuasive Appeals: Episodic and Thematic Framing, Emotional Response, and Policy Opinion. Political Psychology. 29 (2), 169-191.!!Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E. and Dozier, D.M. (2002). Excellent organizations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.!!Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205-242.!!Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Verčič, D. & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication. 1(1), 3-35.!
�72
Hallahan, K. (2008). Framing theory. In: Donsbach, W. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Communication.!!Hallahan, K. (2013). Framing theory. In: R. Heath (Eds.) Encyclopedia of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 361-364. [online] Available from: < http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452276236.n202> [Accessed 7 July 2015].!!Hertog, J.K. and McLeod, D.M. (2001). A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field guide. In Reese, S.D. Gandy, J.O.H. and Grant, A.E. (eds.) Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. New Jersey: Routledge, 139-161.!!Hickerson, C.A. and Bsumek, P.K. (2013). Greening the public relations curriculum: An integrative approach to teaching environmental communication best practices in the campaigns course. PRism. 9(1): 1-11.!!Ihlen, Ø. and Allern, S. (2008). This is the issue: Framing contests, public relations and media coverage. In Strömbäck, J. Ørsten, M. and Aalberg, T. (eds.) Communicating politics: Political communication in the Nordic Countries. Gothenburg, Sweden: Nordicom, 233-248.!!Interbrand and Deloitte (2014) Best Global Green Brands 2014.!!Kahan, D.M. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature. 463, 296-297.!!Klein P. and Martin M. (2015). In the Future, Companies Will Only Survive if They Help Solve Big Social Problems. Forbes Magazine. January 2015. [online] Available from: < http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2015/01/05/how-companies-can-become-more-socially-responsible-in-2014/ > [Accessed 14 April 2015].!!Lazard, A. and Atkinson, L. (2014). The Role of Visuals at the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s Critical Point of Persuasion. Sage: Science Communication. 1-28.!!Lim, J. and Jones, L. (2010). A baseline summary of framing research in public relations from 1990 to 2009. Public Relations Review. 36(3), 292-297.!
�73
!Long-Crowell, E. (2014). How Emotion Influences Attitudes and Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (1), 45-61.!!Lundy, L, K. (2006). Effect of framing on cognitive processing in Public Relations. Public Relations Review. 32, 295-301.!!Mathews, L. (2015) Five ways that people frame climate change debates. The Guardian. February 2015. [online] Available from: < http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/feb/23/five-ways-that-people-frame-climate-change-debates> [Accessed 11 April 2015].!!Merriam-Webster, I. (1988). Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam.!!Montoro-Rios, F.J.; Luque-Martinez, T. and Rodriguez-Molina, M.A. (2008). How Green Should You Be: Can Environmental Associations Enhance Brand Performance? Journal of Advertising Research. 48 (4), 547-563.!!Nahaï, N. (2015). For brands and MP’s, language holds power and is key to shaping belief and behaviour. Marketing Week. April 2015. [online] Available from: < https://www.marketingweek.com/2015/04/29/for-brands-and-mps-language-is-key-to-shaping-beliefs-and-behaviour/> [Accessed 15 April 2015].!!Nelson, T. Oxley, Z. and Clawson, R. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior. 19, 221-246.!!Nisbet, M.C. (2009). The Ethics of Framing Science. In Nerlich B., Larson, B. and Elliott, R. (eds.) Communicating Biological Sciences: Ethical and Metaphorical Dimensions. London: Ashgate, 51-74.!!Nyilasy, G.; Gangadharbatla, H. and Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived Greenwashing: The Interactive Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance on Consumer Reactions. Journal of Business Ethics. 125 (4), 693-707.!!
�74
Parguel, B.; Benoit-Moreau, F. and Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics. 102 (1), 15–28.!!Park. S. and Cameron, G.T. (2013). Proactive environmental risk communication: Science reporters’ evaluation of for-profit corporations’ sustainability communication. Prism. 10 (1): 1-16.!!Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in experimental social psychology. 19, 124-181.!!Petty, R.E.; Briol, P. and Priester, J. R. (2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Jennings, B. and Oliver, M. B. (eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Hoboken, NJ: Routledge, 125-164.!!Pfau, M. and Wan, H. (2006). Persuasion: An intrinsic function of public relations. In Botan, C.H. and Hazleton, V. Public relations theory II, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 88-120.!!Plec, E. and Pettenger, M. (2012). Greenwashing Consumption: The Didactic Framing of ExxonMobil's Energy Solutions. Environmental Communication. 6:4, 459-476.!!Preciado-Hoyos, A. (2013). The role of public relations in corporate social responsibility programs in the Colombian electricity sector. Public Relations Review. 39 (5), 591–593.!!Ravindra, N. (2015). HR and its role in CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility. Hans India magazine. April 2015. [online] Available from: < http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2015-04-13/HR-and-its-role-in-CSR-Corporate-Social-Responsibility---143939> [Accessed 15 April 2015].!!Ray, M. L. and Batra, R. (1983). Emotion and Persuasion in Advertising: What we Do and Don’t Know about Affect. Advances in Consumer Research. 661, 1-12.!!Reese, S.D. Gandy, J.O.H. and Grant, A. E. (2001). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.!
�75
!Roiser, J.P. (2009). Hot and cold cognition in depression. Journal of Neuroscience Education Institute. 18 (3), 178-189.!!Rosengren, K.E. (2000). Communication: An introduction. London, England: Sage.!!Schlichting, I. (2013). Strategic Framing of Climate Change by Industry Actors: A Meta-analysis. Environmental Communication. 7 (4), 493-511.!!Schultz, F.; Kleinnijenhuis, J.; Oegema, D.; Utz, S. and van Atteveldt, W. (2012). Strategic framing in the BP crisis: A semantic network analysis of associative frames. Public Relations Review. 38(1), 97-107.!!Smith, P.K.; Wakslak, C.J. and Han, A. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of personality and social psychology. 107(1), 41-63.!!Volkmer, I. (2009). Framing theory. In: Littlejohn, S. and Foss, K. (eds.) Encyclopedia of communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 408-410. [online] Available from: < http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n151> [Accessed 7 July 2015].!!Volkmer, R. (2009). Synthesis and Application of Peptide Arrays: Quo Vadis SPOT Technology. ChemBioChem. 10(9), 1431-1442.!!Waller, R.L. and Conaway, R.N. (2011). Framing and Counterframing the Issue of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Communication Strategies of nikebiz.com. Journal of Business Communication. 48 (1), 83-106.!!Wood, J. (2015). CSR or Corporate Social Responsibility…What’s that about then? S c o t t i s h B u s i n e s s N e w s . J u n e 2 0 1 5 . [ o n l i n e ] A v a i l a b l e f r o m : < http://www.aberdeenbusinessnews.co.uk/csr/item/6247-csr-or-corporate-social-responsibility-what-s-that-about-then > [Accessed 11 June 2015].!!!!!
�76
Bibliography!!Barney, R.D. and Black, J. (1994). Ethics and professional persuasive communications.
Public Relations Review. 20 (3), 233-248.!
!Benn, S.; Renier, T.L. and Pendleton, J. (2010). Public relations leadership in corporate
social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 96, 403-423.!
!Brantner, C.; Lobinger, K. and Wetzstein, I. (2011). Effects of Visual Framing and
Evaluations of News Stories on Emotional Responses About the Gaza Conflict 2009.
Journal of Journalism & Mass Communication. 88, 523-540.!
!Carragee, K.M. and Roefs, W. (2004). The neglect of power in recent framing research.
Journal of Communication. 54 (2), 241-233.!
!Cornelissen, J. (2008). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice.
London, England: Sage.!
!Dan, V. and Ihlen, Ø. (2011). Framing expertise: A cross-cultural analysis of success in
framing contests. Journal of Communication Management. 15 (4), 368-388.!
!Desiere, S.E. and Sha, B.L. (2007). Exploring the development of an organisational
approach to media relationships. Public Relations Review. 33 (1), 96-98.!
!
�77
Drolet, A.; Williams, P. and Lau-Gesk, L. (2007) Age-related differences in responses to
affective vs. rational ads for hedonic vs. utilitarian products. Marketing Letters. 18 (4),
211-221.!
!Entman, R.M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of
Communication. 57 (1), 163-173.!
!Fairhurst, G.T. (2010). The Power of Framing: Creating the Language of Leadership (2nd
ed.). London, England: Jossey-Bass.!
!Furlow, N.E. (2010). Greenwashing in the new millennium. Journal of Applied Business
and Economics. 10 (6), 22–25.!
!Ihlen, Ø. and Thorbjørnsrud, K. (2014). Tears and Framing Contests: Public Organizations
Countering Critical and Emotional Stories. International Journal of Strategic
Communication. 8 (1), 45-60.!
!Kuypers, J.A. (2009). Framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. In D’Angelo, P. and
Kuypers, J.A. (eds.) Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives.
New York: Routledge, 286-31.!
!Oliver, S. (2004). A Handbook of Corporate Communication and Strategic Public
Relations. London, England: Routledge.!
Tengblad, S. and Ohlsson, C. (2010). The Framing of Corporate Social Responsibility and
the Globalization of National Business Systems: A Longitudinal Case Study. Journal of
Business Ethics. 93 (4), 653-669.!
�78
!Vliegenthart, R. and van Zoonen, L. (2011). Power to the frame: Bringing sociology back to
frame analysis. European Journal of Communication. 26 (2), 101-115.!
!Yan, C.; Dillard, J.P. and Shen, F. (2012). Emotion, Motivation, and the Persuasive Effects
of Message Framing. Journal of Communication. 62 (4), 682–700.!
!Yeomans, L. (2007). Emotion in public relations: a neglected phenomenon. Journal of
Communication Management. 11 (3), 212-221. !
!!!!!
�79
