BUSINESS INFORM JOURNAL.

УКР

ENG

Search:

REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE

KV #19905-9705 PR dated 02.04.2013.

FOUNDERS

RESEARCH CENTER FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS of NAS of Ukraine (KHARKIV, UKRAINE)

ROR

EDRPOU 05481984

According to the decision No. 802 of the National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine dated 14.03.2024, is registered as a subject in the field of print media.
ID R30-03156

PUBLISHER

Liburkina L. M.

CATALOG

Explaining Motivations for CSR Communication: A Comparative Analysis of Theoretical Frameworks
Nashchekina O. M., Tymoshenkov I. V.

Nashchekina, Olga M., and Tymoshenkov, Ihor V. (2026) “Explaining Motivations for CSR Communication: A Comparative Analysis of Theoretical Frameworks.” Business Inform 6:532–544.
https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2026-6-532-544

Section: Management and Marketing

Article is written in English
Downloads/views: 0

Download article (pdf) -

UDC 65.01:659.44

Abstract:
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication has become an important component of contemporary corporate strategy, contributing to organizational transparency, reputation building, and the development of long-term relationships with stakeholders. The efficiency of CSR communication depends on the motivations underlying CSR disclosures. Understanding these motivations is important for the strategic management of CSR communication and for assessing the quality and credibility of corporate disclosures. The aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of theoretical frameworks explaining why organizations engage in CSR communication, to identify the primary motives underlying CSR disclosures as implied by these frameworks, and to examine the implications of different theories for CSR disclosure quality. The article classifies the motives underlying CSR communication into four broad categories: economic (strategic), social (relational), legitimacy-related, and institutional. On this basis, the article compares the explanations of CSR communication offered by signaling theory, voluntary disclosure theory, resource dependence theory, stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and institutional isomorphism. The analysis suggests that, although these theoretical frameworks overlap, each is primarily associated with one of the four broad categories of motives. The specific motives identified in the article include reducing information asymmetries and gaining a competitive advantage by signaling superior CSR performance, securing access to critical resources, building long-term relationships with stakeholder groups and securing their support, gaining social legitimacy, conforming to legal and professional expectations, and imitating widely accepted organizational practices. The article also compares the implications of different theoretical frameworks for CSR disclosure quality. The analysis suggests that different motives are associated with varying degrees of symbolic and substantive communication. Signaling theory, stakeholder theory, and resource dependence theory appear to be more closely associated with substantive communication, whereas legitimacy theory and institutional isomorphism provide useful perspectives for understanding symbolic forms of disclosure. Because organizational CSR communication is typically driven by multiple motives simultaneously, a comprehensive understanding of CSR communication requires combining several theoretical perspectives rather than relying on a single explanatory framework.

Keywords: CSR communication; CSR communication motives; signaling theory; resource dependence theory; legitimacy theory; stakeholder theory; institutional isomorphism; CSR disclosure quality.

Tabl.: 2. Bibl.: 37.

Nashchekina Olga M. – Candidate of Sciences (Physics and Mathematics), Associate Professor, Associate Professor, Department of Management, National Technical University «Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute» (2 Kyrpychova Str., Kharkіv, 61002, Ukraine)
Email: [email protected]
Tymoshenkov Ihor V. – Candidate of Science (Economics), associate professor, professor of the Department of Economic Theory and Law of Kharkov University of Humanities «People’s Ukrainian Academy»

List of references in article

Arvidsson S. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0469-2
Ashforth B.E. & Gibbs B.W. (1990). The Double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 2(1), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
Bacha S. & Ajina A. (2020). CSR performance and annual report readability: evidence from France. Corporate Governance, 2(20), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-02-2019-0060
Bachmann P. & Ingenhoff D. (2016). Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages. Public Relations Review, 3(42), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.02.008
Boiral O., Heras-Saizarbitoria I. & Brotherton M.C. (2019). Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: the auditors’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 3(155), 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4
Brennan M.N. & Merkl-Davies D.M. (2022). Discretionary accounting narratives in contemporary corporate reporting: review and framework. Accounting and Management Review | Revista de Contabilidade e Gestao, 1(26), 175–209. https://doi.org/10.55486/amrrcg.v26i.8a
Cho C.H., Laine M., Roberts R.W. & Rodrigue M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational facades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003
Clarkson P.M., Li Y., Richardson G.D. & Vasvari F.P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 4–5(33), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
Connelly B.L., Certo S.T., Ireland R.D. & Reutzel C.R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 1(37), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
Deegan C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 3(15), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
DiMaggio P.J. & Powell W.W. (1983). The Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 2(48), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dowling J. & Pfeffer J. (1975). Organizational Legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1(18), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388226
Freeman R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston, MA.
Garriga E. & Mele D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34
Gosselt J.F., van Rompay T. & Haske L. (2019). Won’t get fooled again: The effects of internal and external CSR ECO-labeling. Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3512-8
Hatami A., Hermes J. & Firoozi N. (2023). Moral laxity – the cognitive gap between true and pseudo corporate social responsibility. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 4(19), 526–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-03-2021-0029
Ji Y.G., Tao W. & Rim H. (2022). Theoretical insights of CSR research in communication from 1980 to 2018: A Bibliometric network analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 177, 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04748-w
Jiang Y., Fan H., Zhu Y. & Xu J.F. (2023). Carbon disclosure: A legitimizing tool or a governance tool? Evidence from listed US companies. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 1(34), 36–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12161
Koh K., Li H. & Tong Y.H. (2023). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and stakeholder engagement: Evidence from the quantity and quality of CSR disclosures. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2(30), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2370
Mahajan R., Lim W.M., Sareen M., Kumar S. & Panwar R. (2023). Stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Research, 166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114104
Moratis L. (2018). Signaling responsibility? Applying signaling theory to the ISO 26000 standard for social responsibility. Sustainability, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114172
Morsing M. & Schultz M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 4(15), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x
Nashchekina O.M. & Tymoshenkov I.V. (2026). Walk the talk and talk the walk: effective communication of CSR performance. Biznes Inform, 3, 620–633. https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2026-3-620-633
Nashchekina O.M. & Tymoshenkov I.V. (2025). How CSR influences consumer behavior: mechanisms and moderating variables. Biznes Inform, 6, 456–468. https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2025-6-456-468
Nielsen E.A. & Thomsen C. (2018). Reviewing corporate social responsibility communication: a legitimacy perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(23), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2018-0042
Nishitani K., Park J.D. & Haider M.B. (2025). Bridging the gap between legitimacy and voluntary disclosure theory and current corporate nonfinancial reporting practices: Insights from Japanese companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2(34), 2449–2468. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4119
Pfeffer J. & Salancik G.R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper &Row.
Pope S. & W?raas A. (2016). CSR-washing is rare: A conceptual framework, literature review, and critique. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(137), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2546-z
Schmeltz L. (2017). Getting CSR communication fit: A study of strategically fitting cause, consumers and company in corporate CSR communication. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(6), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X16666731
Spence M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 3(87), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
Stiglitz J.E. (2000). The Contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 4(115), 1441–1478. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300555015
Suchman M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 3(20), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Sweeney L. & Coughlan J. (2008). Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications, 2(14), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856657
Taj S.A. (2016). Application of signaling theory in management research: Addressing major gaps in theory. European Management Journal, 4(34), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.001
Verrecchia R.E. (1983). Discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, 179–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(83)90011-3
Viererbl B. & Koch T. (2022). The paradoxical effects of communicating CSR activities: Why CSR communication has both positive and negative effects on the perception of a company’s social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 1(48). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102134
Wagner T., Lutz R.J. & Weitz B.A. (2009). Corporate Hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 6(73), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.77