Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 494– 497

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Research in Brief

America’s most admired companies: A descriptive analysis of CEOcorporate social responsibility statements

Laura Louise Beauchampa, Amy O’Connorb,∗

a Cone, Inc., Boston, United Statesb North Dakota State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 September 2011Received in revised form 13 March 2012Accepted 24 March 2012

Keyword:Corporate social responsibility

a b s t r a c t

This study analyzes the CEO corporate social responsibility statements (N = 50) of Fortunemagazine’s America’s Most Admired Companies. The results find that CEOs describe cor-porate social responsibility primarily in performance and shareholder driven language.The implications of the findings are discussed and compared to previous research in thecommunication and business disciplines.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

To meet the expectations of stakeholders, corporations routinely publish non-financial activity reports (Cone, 2010;KPMG, 2008). Commonly referred to as corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports, the documents communicate a widerange of non-financial initiatives including environmental, technical, and community outreach programs. The majority ofthe CSR reports feature a statement by the CEO, in all likelihood because CEOs personify a corporation to its stakeholders andare “literally and symbolically the organization in the eyes of the stakeholders” (Park & Berger, 2004, p. 93). In the contextof CSR reports, the CEO’s statement represents the corporate position on CSR activities, seeks to persuade stakeholders tofollow the CSR direction outlined and shape a favorable corporate image (Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan, 2006, p. 1704).

CSR literature has largely focused on unattributed organizational messages. Such a focus is likely because the majority ofCSR texts are not attributable to an individual author. Our study addresses this limitation by analyzing the CSR texts attributedto the CEO. Such a move illuminates how CEOs individually and collectively describe the CSR activities of corporationsnamed by Fortune magazine’s as “America’s Most Admired” companies. Further, the research identifies the CSR activitiesgiven communication primacy by industry leaders and provides an opportunity to compare CEO’s descriptions of CSR withprevious research findings. As such, we ask: How do the CEOs of America’s Most Admired Companies describe their CSR?

2. Method

Since 2001, Fortune magazine has compiled an annual list of “America’s Most Admired Companies.” The selection processbegins with the top 1000 U.S. companies (including any foreign companies operating in the United States) ranked in order byrevenue (Fortune, 2008). Next, the companies are sorted based upon economic industry to create a 64 industries list (Fortune,2008). The industries range from airline to telecommunication. To create the 2008 list,” Fortune and the survey firm HayGroup asked 3700 experts (e.g. executives, directors, and analysts) to rate companies in their own industry on eight criteria:Innovation, people management, use of corporate assets, social responsibility, quality of management, financial soundness,

∗ Corresponding author at: North Dakota State University, Dept. #2310, PO Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108-60, United States. Tel.: +1 701 231 8585.E-mail address: amy.oconnor@ndsu.edu (A. O’Connor).

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.03.006

L.L. Beauchamp, A. O’Connor / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 494– 497 495

long-term investment, and quality of products/services from investment value to social responsibility (Fortune, 2008). Onlythe companies ranking in the top half of their industry are considered the “most admired” and included on the list (Fortune,2008).

2.1. Sample

The CSR reports included in this study were retrieved from company websites between November 15, 2008, and November30, 2008. Of the 317 companies listed on the 2008 “Most Admired Companies” list only 280 companies had CEO statementspresent in their CSR reports. The companies with CEO statements included in their CSR reports were assembled into analphabetical list and a random sample (N = 50) using a random number generator was drawn.

The companies included in the sample were: Abbott Laboratories, Adobe Systems, Air Products & Chemicals, Alaska AirGroup, Alcoa, American Express, Anheuser Busch, Anixter, Arrow Electronics, AT&T, Baxter, Black & Decker, CACI Interna-tional, Inc., Canon, CBRL Group, Centex, Charles Schwab, Chubb, CVS/Caremark, Daimler, Devon Energy, Dun & Bradstreet,Electronic Data Systems, Eli Lilly, Energizer Holdings, Fortune Brands, Gap, General Mills, Google, Harris, Health Net, HertzGlobal Holdings, Illinois Tool Works, Intel, Massachusetts Mutual Life, McDonald’s, MetLife, Newmont Mining, NVR, PenskeAutomotive Group, PepsiAmericas, ProLogics, Prudential Financial, Raytheon, Siemens, Sony, Steelcase, Steel Dynamics,Starbucks, and Sysco (Appendix).

2.2. Data analysis

The data was coded in three phases by the authors (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The three phases of coding allowed first,for categories of analysis to be discovered through open coding; second, compared through axial coding; and finally, thedata were approached using of sensitizing concepts. Sensitizing concepts included stakeholder driven, performance drivenand motivation driven statements. Once the data was coded, the company statements were analyzed in relation to oneanother to discover commonalities and differences across CEO statements. This level of analysis allowed us to move beyonda micro-level understanding of individual CEO statements to patterns among the companies included in this study.

3. Results

Our analysis yielded three categories: economic responsibility, ethical responsibility, and community commitments. Insum, 82% of the text was coded. The remaining 18% of the text consisted of introductory sentences, transitions, and signaturelines.

The majority (87%) of the data analyzed fit within the category defined as economic responsibility. Economic responsibilitywas explained in relation to shareholder/stakeholder, growth, longevity, marketplace conditions, and corporate legitimacy.CEOs communicated CSR initiatives as performance driven with an emphasis on shareholder benefits. In particular, the CEOsidentified shareholder value, shareholder returns, and lower costs for customers as evidence of CSR. E. Schmidt, CEO of Google,summarized “we take our responsibility to our shareholders very seriously. Our belief is that we maximize shareholder valueby maintaining a long-term focus.”

CSR as a form of economic responsibility also included references to growth, business expansion and acquisitions acrossthe country or globe as well as increased customer bases, the launch of new products, future research projects, strategicplans for the company, marketing, investments, and new programs. K. Busse, CEO of Steel Dynamics, touted the company’srecord profits, revenues, and cash flow as evidence of CSR in the non-financial report.

Finally, economic responsibility addressed how the company will sustain itself and will respond to future demands andindustry changes. This included communication about how the economy has or will affect the company both positivelyand negatively. For example, “due in part to market concerns about a slowdown in the U.S. economy and potential slowingcomputer marketplace” (C. Barrett, Intel).

The second category present in the CEO statements was ethical responsibility. Text included within the category of ethicalresponsibility focused on the organization’s moral obligations and represented 8% of the coded data. This category includedreferences to organizational culture and the environment. All of the statements analyzed mentioned their executive staff andleadership. A. Ryan, Prudential’s CEO, explained “we are deeply committed to providing a work environment that fostersrespect, champions diversity, applauds innovation, and gives employees every opportunity to realize their potential.” Inaddition, the CEOs communicated product and production quality as evidence of CSR. For example, “We are committed toresearching, developing, and marketing our products in an ethical and transparent manner, and manufacturing them ina way that protects patients, the environment, and the health and safety of our workers and the communities that hostour facilities” (S. Taurel, Eli Lilly). Similarly, H. Stringer, Sony’s CEO, describes his company as having “the highest ethicalstandards in everything we do.” Further, internal processes (e.g. emissions reductions) and external actions (e.g., awarenessand education programs) were identified as ways to be socially responsible. S. Narayea, CEO of Adobe stated, “In 2007, wecontinued our commitment to conserving natural resources and minimizing our impact on the environment with innovativeprograms that increase efficiencies, conserve energy and water, improve air quality and reduce waste.”

The third category identified was philanthropic responsibilities. It represented 5% of the coded data and described CSR interms of voluntary initiatives the company and its employees support. For example, “It is our commitment to improve the

496 L.L. Beauchamp, A. O’Connor / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 494– 497

communities in which we live and work” (L. Nichols, Devon) and R. Parkinson’s, CEO of Baxter, contention that employees“personally make community involvement part of their job descriptions.” This category identified the beneficiaries of thephilanthropy as the communities in which the corporation had operations and did not identify specific social causes.

4. Discussion

The results of this study found that CEOs described CSR primarily as an economic responsibility to shareholders. Eventhough the CSR reports were non-financial and voluntary, the CEOs in this study relied on economically guided language toinform and persuade the audience of their company’s CSR value. This finding contrasts with O’Connor and Shumate’s (2010)research that analyzed the CSR statements of 103 Fortune 500 companies. Their research found that corporations primarilycommunicated CSR as a voluntary responsibility (e.g. ethical and philanthropic). Our findings suggest when CEOs are theidentified communicator, CSR communication more closely follows Carroll’s (1991) assertion that CSR can be understoodas a pyramid in which economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities are met in ascending order. The emphasison CSR as financial performance supports research that contends CSR is a bottom-line, strategic, competitive advantageinitiative (Friedman, 1970; Porter & Kramer, 2006). CEOs in this study did not communicate CSR as a voluntary, goodwillgesture. Rather, CSR was communicated as a requirement to provide shareholders with a return on investment.

The CEO statements offered only a cursory nod to philanthropy as a form of CSR. In addition, the philanthropy was situatedas supporting the communities in which they operate. This finding aligns with previous research (O’Connor & Shumate, 2010)that found companies focus their CSR efforts in communities in which they have operations and rely heavily on employeevolunteerism as evidence of CSR. Thus indicating a communication consistency between CEO and public relations campaignsstatements. However, the minimal emphasis on philanthropy challenges research (O’Connor & Meister, 2008; O’Connor,Shumate, & Meister, 2008) that found active moms do not define CSR solely in economic terms and expect philanthropicsupport of social causes to be an important part of a corporation’s responsibility.

Taken together, these findings suggest that CEOs may conceptualize CSR differently than the more prominent CSR publicrelations campaigns that communicate CSR as motivation driven rather than performance driven. This finding gives credenceto concerns that CSR communication creates the stories, myths, and culture of a magnanimous organization that may existonly in times of economic prosperity, if at all.

5. Conclusion

The findings of this study suggest that CEOs largely conceptualize CSR as the economic contribution the company makesto society. The majority (87%) of the coded text found in the CEO statements of the companies analyzed was directed atwhat the company is doing to directly benefit its stakeholders and shareholders in terms of profitability. This finding wassurprising given the popular definitions of CSR focus primarily on the business citizenship perspective in recent CSR studiesand suggests that Carroll’s (1991) CSR pyramid in which corporations meet responsibilities in ascending order is particularlyapplicable in economic downturns.

This study offers empirical evidence that CEOs describe their CSR activities in distinctly different ways than the moreprominent mass media CSR campaigns. The discrepancy between economic and philanthropic foci suggests different, andpossibly contradictory, CSR messages are given primacy. More research is needed to further explore these differences anddevelop models that account for message source and audience as a factor in message content.

Appendix A. Corporate statements consulted

Barrett, C.R. (2008). Letter to stakeholders. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from the Intel website: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/478176455x0x191072/A1DA1340-1482-4851-87F9-FD94F16AFD9A/intel 2007ar.pdf

Busse, K. (2008). Letter to stakeholders. Retrieved from the Steel Dynamics website:http://www.steeldynamics.com/investor info/annual reports/SDIAnnualReport07.pdf

Narayen, S., Warnock, J.E., & Geschke, C.M. (2008). Letter to stakeholders. Retrieved from the Adobe website:http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/pdfs/FY2007 LettertoStockholders.pdf

Nichols, L.J. (2008). Letter to stakeholders. Retrieved from the Devon Energy website: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media files/irol/67/67097/reports/AR2007/2007ar.pdf

Parkinson, R.L. (2008). Letter to stakeholders. Retrieved from the Baxter International website:http://www.baxter.com/about baxter/investor information/annual report/2007/PDF files/BaxterAR 2007.pdf

Ryan, A.F. (2008). Letter to stakeholders. Retrieved from the Prudential Financial website:http://www3.prudential.com/annualreport/report2008/annual/HTML2/prudential ar2007 0003.htm

Schmidt, E. (2008). Letter to stakeholders. Retrieved from the Google website: http://investor.google.com/message ceo.htmlStringer, H. (2008). Letter to stakeholders. Retrieved from the Sony website: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Environment/

issues/report/2008/pdf/CSR2008 02.pdfTaurel, S. (2008). Letter to stakeholders. Retrieved from the Eli Lilly website: http://www.lilly.com/pdf/citizenship report

0607.pdf

L.L. Beauchamp, A. O’Connor / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 494– 497 497

References

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 39–48.Cone. (2010). Cause evolution study. Boston, MA: Cone, Inc.Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.Fortune. (2008). Retrieved from: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2008/full list/index.htmlFriedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase profit. The New York Times Magazine, 33.KPMG. (2008, October 27). KPMG analysis shows number of U.S. companies reporting sustainability data has doubled since 2005. Retrieved from:.

http://www.kpmg.com/us/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Press-Releases/Documents/Sustainability press release.pdfO’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management

Communication Quarterly, 24, 529–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318909358747O’Connor, A., Shumate, M., & Meister, M. (2008). Walk the line: Active moms define corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 34, 343–370.O’Connor, A., & Meister, M. (2008). Corporate social responsibility attribute rankings. Public Relations Review, 34, 49–50.Park, D., & Berger, B. K. (2004). The presentation of CEOs in the press, 1990–2000: Increasing salience, positive valence, and a focus on competency and

personal dimensions of image. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(1), 93–125.Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business

Review, 84, 78–92.Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management

Studies, 43(8), 1703–1725.