Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication

JBR-08837; No of Pages 13 Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication Christina Scandelius ⁎, Geraldine Cohen 1 Centre for Research in Marketing, Brunel Business School, Brunel University, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 10 March 2015 Received in revised form 14 January 2016 Accepted 21 January 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Strategic ambiguity CSR communication Sustainability Stakeholder management Sustainability program brand

a b s t r a c t This paper seeks to explore how the concept of strategic ambiguity could have a role in CSR communication to stimulate collaboration with diverse stakeholders. The research is undertaken through a multiple case study in the food and drink value chain in Western Europe. The findings suggest a number of drivers for strategic ambiguity and connect these to active versus passive stakeholder response. Further, it advises how strategic ambiguity may be applied in CSR communication both across the wider stakeholder community and to specific stakeholder groups. In theoretical terms, the findings offer an essential advance in communication and stakeholder management practices around CSR philosophies by introducing strategic ambiguity in the format of branding, which could unify diverse stakeholders, stimulate innovation, and facilitate collaboration and co-creation. The presented communication framework, by being more universal, offers profitability in not only environmental and social aspects, but also in financial, and management terms. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Over the past decades, the business literature has widely addressed sustainability, which Crane and Matten define as (2010, p. 34): “… the long-term maintenance of systems according to environmental, economic and social considerations.” Sustainability calls for a value chain approach, whereby firms need to take wider responsibility and collaborate with a range of stakeholders to ensure that unsustainable practices are addressed (Crane, Palazzo, Spence, & Matten, 2014; Sakarya, Bodur, Yildirim-Öktem, & Selekler-GÖksen, 2012; Savage et al., 2010; Vurro, Russo, & Perrini, 2009). The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) also emphasizes this value chain approach (UNEP, 2007, pg 18): “The organization must ‘go beyond its facility boundaries’ and be willing to expand its scope of collaboration and communication to all stakeholders in its value chain.” While the UNEP quote mentions collaboration and communication as separate prerequisites for sustainable development, a view may be taken of these two concepts as interlinked, as communication forms the foundation for collaboration (Andriof & Waddock, 2002; Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010; Gregory, 2007).

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1895 267201. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Scandelius), [email protected] (G. Cohen). 1 Tel.: +44 1895 267,201.

So while communication is an essential building block to facilitate collaboration on sustainability initiatives, a substantial part of the extant Sustainability/CSR2 communication literature takes a limited approach and primarily focuses on consumers as the target audience with the purpose of creating trust and brand loyalty (Blombäck & Scandelius, 2013; Brunk, 2010; Golob et al., 2013; Öberseder, Schlegelmilch, & Murphy, 2013; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), so as to safeguard competitiveness in the marketplace (Dowling, 2004; Gurau, 2013). This notion on CSR communication does not require much of an active response from stakeholders, other than purchasing the products or services on offer, or refraining from criticizing the corporation. Such narrow stakeholder focus, aiming primarily for a passive response, results in an increasing criticism of the marketing domain as considering the interests of primarily the customer without major concerns on how other stakeholders are faring (Maignan, Ferrell, & Ferrell, 2005). As a response, a more contemporary view of marketing is emerging through the service-dominant marketing logic, whereby value should be co-created with customers and other stakeholders, with an outcome benefitting not only the firm but also the network of co-creators (Lusch & Vargo, 2014Vargo & Lusch, 2004Vargo & Lusch, 2008). It should here be clarified that co-creation can be viewed as

2 In line with a number of prominent scholars (Lourenco, Branco, Curto, & Eugenio, 2012; Moon, 2007; Perez-Batres, Miller, & Pisani, 2010; Porter & Kramer, 2006; Sotorrio, Sanchez, & Fernandez, 2008), we make the assumption that the concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability, while not identical, can be used interchangeably.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037 0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

2

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

collaboration with higher involvement and creativity, leading to shared value (Ind, Iglesias, & Schultz, 2013). Inspired by the ideas of co-creation as opposed to passive stakeholders response, Roos and Gustafsson (2011) empirically find that active customers are more likely to remain loyal to the organization compared to passive customers, leading to more positive outcomes also from the participants' perspective (McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, & Sweeney, 2009). Merz, He, and Vargo (2009) emphasize that in order to optimize value creation, communication should move away from a dyadic customer focus to address the entire stakeholder community. These thoughts seem to fit particularly well in a CSR context, where active collaboration and co-creation with a range of stakeholder groups is essential (Crane et al., 2014; Sakarya et al., 2012; Savage et al., 2010; Vurro et al., 2009). Collaboration and co-creation with a multitude of stakeholders poses, however, some challenges. Stakeholders with whom the firm seeks collaboration on CSR initiatives might possess different and even competing values, motives, and views on the most optimal route towards more sustainable practices (Ingenbleek, Binnekamp, & Goddijn, 2007; Jones, Felps, & Bigley, 2007; Kim, Amaeshi, Harris, & Suh, 2013). In addition, even within a specific stakeholder group there could be diversity (Gyrd-Jones & Kornum, 2013; Neville & Menguc, 2006; Waligo, Clarke, & Hawkins, 2014). The potential tension or skepticism stemming from these challenges could become dysfunctional, if not managed properly, which may delay actions towards more sustainable business practices. In order to reap the benefits of a CSR strategy, for not only the firm, but also its stakeholders and the wider society, it is therefore vital to find an effective communication strategy that helps to harness possible tension between stakeholders to create interest and collaboration instead of conflict (Corus & Ozanne, 2012; Du et al., 2010). On this note, one could argue that the CSR communication strategy should ideally not only be effective, resulting in a positive societal outcome, but should additionally be efficient in the use of the firm's resources (Perez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2012). The academic literature strand on strategic ambiguity offers some interesting notions on how to deal with stakeholder diversity. Davenport and Leitch define strategic ambiguity as (2005, p. 1604): “…the deliberate use of ambiguity in strategic communication in order to create a ‘space’ in which multiple interpretations by stakeholders are enabled and to which multiple stakeholder responses are possible.” Dickinson-Delaporte, Beverland, and Lindgreen (2010) give a practical example of strategic ambiguity applied in the marketing of a Trappist beer, i.e., beer brewed by monks for funding social programs. They find that there is significant tension between key stakeholders. The monks , for example, emphasize the importance of tradition and are furthermore concerned that their religious values are exploited by aggressive marketing. Marketing on the other hand faces a competitive market with changing consumer behavior and strive to build a differentiated brand image based on trust. The solution to this challenge is to apply the ambiguous keyword of “authenticity” in positioning the beer, which appeals not only to the monks' interest in the religious morals, but also to the marketers' aim of building a trustworthy brand that is differentiated from regular beer brands and attracts those consumers who want to drink genuine and high quality beers that are not seen as purely commercially driven. Thus, with the ambiguous keyword of “authenticity,” each of the stakeholders could identify an appealing interpretation and find common ground. By contrast, other beer brands use more concrete messages, for example “Australian for beer” by Fosters clearly highlights its origin, or “Probably the best beer in the world” by Carlsberg positions the Carlsberg brand as premium. Extant research suggests that the use of strategic ambiguity allows flexibility in interpretations, which can aid in (1) overcoming differences between diverse stakeholders, (2) facilitating organizational change, (3) preserving privileged positions, (4) maintaining the

possibility of later denying certain interpretations of a message (Eisenberg, 1984), and (5) for an organization to buy itself time while undergoing a change of internal procedures or strategies while still being able to communicate the changing goals to external stakeholders (Leitch & Davenport, 2002). Eisenberg's (1984) is conceptual and largely suggests passive outcomes from strategic ambiguity (overcoming differences, preserve privileged positions, etc., as mentioned above). His theories have empirical verification, however this has hitherto primarily focused on reaching the co-existence of different perspectives aiming at achieving passive endorsement from a few stakeholders, predominantly customers (Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010; Leitch & Davenport, 2007), or seeking engagement from internal stakeholders to create value for the organization itself (Leitch & Davenport, 2002), or from a power relationship standpoint exploring the outcomes and risks of deploying strategic ambiguity in a public funding context (Davenport & Leitch, 2005). These ideas raise the question of whether the deployment of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication can have a positive effect to achieve not only passive stakeholder endorsement, but also active engagement from diverse stakeholders. The occurrence of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication is indeed confirmed through content analyses (Frischherz, 2010; Guthey & Morsing, 2014), but with limited insights into why and how strategic ambiguity is applied. Following these notions, this study aims at exploring how the application of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication could assist in creating not only stakeholder endorsement (passive response) but also importantly collaboration/co-creation (active response) with a multitude of stakeholders. The specific research objectives are to explore (1) the antecedents and consequences of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, including both passive and active stakeholder response; (2) the format(s) of strategic ambiguity applied in CSR communication in order to create passive and active response from stakeholders.

The findings suggest that strategic ambiguity has the potential in facilitating CSR communication, leading to both passive and active responses from stakeholders. Importantly, one emerging discovery is that strategic ambiguity in the format of sustainability program brands can serve as a particularly effective and efficient CSR communication strategy. “Performance with Purpose” by PepsiCo is one example of such a sustainability program that has been branded with an ambiguous message to allow multiple interpretations to co-exist and therefore facilitating collaboration with diverse stakeholders. As such, this research not only impacts on the strategic ambiguity literature but also contributes to the literature strands of CSR communication, stakeholder management, and new service-dominant marketing logic. It should be noted that the application of strategic ambiguity must not have the intention to misguide but rather to allow multiple interpretations to avoid conflict and stimulate collaboration. The next section provides an overview of the current knowledge of strategic ambiguity, forming the foundation for this research. This is followed by a discussion on the research methodology applied and findings and finally concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for theory and practice. 2. Theoretical background to strategic ambiguity 2.1. Introduction to strategic ambiguity Eisenberg first brought the concept of strategic ambiguity into the organizational communication literature in his seminal article (1984),

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

where he defines strategic ambiguity as (1984, p. 230) “those instances where individuals use ambiguity purposefully to accomplish their goals.” Eisenberg argues that while clarity is an important aspect of communication, it might be more pragmatic to avoid being too specific in contexts where multiple contradicting goals exist. There are some limited notions on the application of strategic ambiguity in the context of CSR communication, for example, the conceptual paper by Wexler (2009), suggesting that the concept of TBL reporting (triple bottom line, that is, reporting on economic, social and environmental performance) allows for multiple interpretations and as such stimulates consensus in a diverse stakeholder context. Furthermore, the recent paper by Guthey and Morsing (2014) concludes, based on a content analysis of the Danish press, that as the CSR concept in itself is ambiguous, and because of the often conflicting expectations from stakeholders, CSR communication benefits from strategic ambiguity to allow for sense-making among a diverse audience. Another study (Frischherz, 2010) based on 56 texts accessed from websites from a variety of organizations reveals a significant tendency to use metaphors in sustainability communication, with “sustainability as a journey” and “sustainability as war” being the most frequently used metaphors. A recent study in the marketing field also raises the benefits of ambiguous wording (albeit not specifically referring to strategic ambiguity) to resolve issues that require actions from a multitude of actors (Ritvala & Salmi, 2011). Their case study, with ecological issues in the Baltic Sea as the focus, suggests that (Ritvala & Salmi, 2011, p. 895) “… if the issue and its possible solutions were framed in an interesting but loose manner, firms responded positively, because they could incorporate the issue into their strategies and control needed resource commitments.” The extant research on the topic of strategic ambiguity is, however, richer in other areas, particularly from an organizational theory perspective, which the following section presents.

2.2. Advantages and pitfalls of strategic ambiguity The existing research empirically verifies strategic ambiguity as a useful management tool in a range of non-CSR contexts. In addition, Yannopoulou and Elliott (2008) find that audiences receive ambiguous messages in advertising positively, as they have to engage more in the communication, and therefore the message is more memorable. Strategic ambiguity can also have a positive contribution in the creation of common ground in social enterprise marketing on sensitive topics (Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010), in facilitating organizational change or merger (Contractor & Ehrlich, 1993; Davenport & Leitch, 2005; Denis, Dompierre, Langley, & Rouleau, 2011; Leitch & Davenport, 2002; Miller, Joseph, & Apker, 2000), in finding consensus on controversial topics in policy documents (Leitch & Davenport, 2007; Tracy & Ashcraft, 2001), and to allow flexibility in crisis communication (Ulmer & Sellnow, 2000). While the authors above agree on the usefulness of strategic ambiguity, there are warnings of instances when strategic ambiguity may cause more harm than good. There is empirical evidence suggesting that lack of clarity could reduce trust in contexts where trust is important, especially where previously strict control characterizes the management style (Davenport & Leitch, 2005). These observations are noteworthy as they raise the question as to how strategic ambiguity sits in an ethical context. In a CSR communication context, creating trust with stakeholders is vital, especially with the notion of consumer skepticism following the practice of “greenwash” by some organizations. Therefore, in order to reap the benefits of strategic ambiguity, it is thus imperative that strategic ambiguity is practiced in a responsible and ethical fashion.

3

Research on the ethical aspect of strategic ambiguity suggests that ambiguous communication is unethical if the objective is to create false perception or preferential treatment for certain stakeholders (Ulmer & Sellnow, 2000) or to avoid responsibility (Paul & Strbiak, 1997). Also, Driessen, Kok, and Hillebrand (2013) warn about equivocality as it may reduce the clarity required for stakeholders to take appropriate actions. Some research further claims that strategic ambiguity can cause indecision and passivity (Davenport & Leitch, 2005; Denis et al., 2011; Jarzabkowski, Sillince, & Shaw, 2010), or active resistance through unconstructive interpretations (Davenport & Leitch, 2005), and may create “false consensus” where stakeholders believe they are in agreement and take actions accordingly that might lead to delayed tension (Denis et al., 2011) and may also portray the management as incompetent, or not capable of taking decisions on their own (Leitch & Davenport, 2002). Despite the many dangers, the majority of the authors in the strategic ambiguity literature agree on the usefulness of ambiguous communication if applied responsibly. The literature advises to refrain from using wordings that are negative, inconsistent, or contradictory as this might lead to even more tension. In addition, to make strategic ambiguity work, it is important to frame the message in accordance with the capability of each stakeholder group and not least to ensure that the message and the objective of the communication are fully understood within the organization itself (Leitch & Davenport, 2002). The literature also stresses that it is important to frame the ambiguous message correctly based on the knowledge and complexity of the stakeholders receiving the message Ulmer & Sellnow, 2000). Leitch and Davenport (2002) similarly question whether strategic ambiguity is appropriate for all stakeholder groups. Leitch and Davenport suggest (2002, p. 137) that in order for strategic ambiguity to be successful, the stakeholders must possess - the internal resources and capability to respond - a strong incentive to engage - goodwill and trust towards the organization. Denis et al. (2011) raise the importance of strong leadership with the support of sufficient resources (also suggested by Miller et al., 2000) and the avoidance of too long time horizons. Being aware of these strengths and weaknesses of strategic ambiguity, the next section addresses how to apply strategic ambiguity. 2.3. Formats of strategic ambiguity Denis et al. (2011) identify the following practices of ambiguity: - Equivocal language: the use of vague words or the complete removal of certain details regarding sensitive topics in contracts or other official documents in order to stimulate a greater number of participants to feel comfortable to sign such documents. - Inflation: slightly exaggerated promotion of proposals to encourage participation. Denis et al. suggest that it should be obvious to the participants that the exaggeration is not fully realistic, but to remain unclear on what aspects will need to be removed during implementation. - Postponement: “leaving controversial issues open in order to maintain commitment” (ibid., p. 239). - Preservation of rights to participate in the future: to encourage settlement on a particular issue where there are still some aspects that are not agreed. Denis et al. suggest to give all participants reassurance of equal rights in future decision making with commitment on revision possibilities at a later date. - Equivocal commitment: when participants sign a commitment they may add conditions, thus giving the actors a chance of reciprocal ambiguity.

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

4

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

While the contracts and policy documents form the basis of the suggestions above, there is further research into other contexts suggesting the use of ambiguous wordings (equivocal language) in job descriptions (Eisenberg & Witten, 1987; Miller et al., 2000), or in an organization's mission statement (Contractor & Ehrlich, 1993), as in a case study from the public sector in New Zealand where an organization deployed an “investment metaphor” to stimulate a dialog with its stakeholders (Leitch & Davenport, 2002). Policy documents may also successfully apply ambiguous keywords, for example, with the purpose of driving the development of the biotechnology industry in New Zealand (Leitch & Davenport, 2007). The documents frequently use keywords like “growth,” “co-existence,” “community,” and “sustainability” throughout, and with multiple meanings assigned. The insights discussed above, based primarily on contributions from organizational theory, provide a useful departure point for further research on the role of strategic ambiguity in a CSR communication context. The following section outlines the research methodology applied in order to shed some light into this query. 3. Methods A qualitative multiple case study appears as an appropriate methodology to explore how a phenomenon like strategic ambiguity is practiced, as it requires deep insights into the decision making process (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). The inclusion of more than one case also allows for different perspectives and could avoid possible shortcomings arising from a study using a single case and thus increase the robustness of the emerging propositions (Yin, 2009). As there are limited empirical studies on the concept of strategic ambiguity in a CSR communication context, an inductive approach is adopted, enabling an ongoing interplay between empirical data, theory building, and literature (Van Maanen, Sorensen, & Mitchell, 2007). 3.1. Research context This research selects the Western European food and drink industry as the context, as firstly, this industry sector is in the spotlight for having a significant impact on the environment and social welfare in those countries that source the raw materials (Lehtinen, 2012; Pullman, Maloni, & Carter, 2009). Secondly, there are also reports on power imbalance and tension between the food/drink manufacturers on the one hand and the retailers on the other hand, where accusations exist of retailers controlling market access and consumer buying behavior (Dawar & Stornelli, 2013). Finally, despite this power imbalance and tension, these actors need to collaborate in order to make progress on the sustainability agenda (Sibbel, 2012). The context of the food and

drink value chain, and in particular the food/drink manufacturers and retailers, is thus ideal for exploring how the application of strategic ambiguity could harness this tension and allow the actors to find common ground to facilitate positive change on sustainability issues.

3.2. Sampling and data collection In total, a selection of 20 cases is made (see Tables 1 and 2), split between retailers (6 cases), manufacturers, which are here referred to as brand owners (7 cases), and stakeholders (7 cases). The selection ensures that the cases include a wide range of company sizes both for retailers and brand owners. Interviews were conducted with three types of stakeholders: trade organizations, governmental organizations, and opinion formers/experts in the area, as depicted in Table 2. The data collection occurred during the period from June 2011 to April 2012. Within each case, in-depth interviews with one or more senior managers/directors who would be directly involved in designing their firm's CSR communication strategy took place, as is portrayed in Tables 1 and 2 (with interview questions presented in Appendix A). The sample selection technique applied in this study is convenience sampling, utilizing the authors' existing network, combined with snowball sampling. The selection only included companies with an implemented CSR communication strategy. In addition to the interviews, other sources of information include one focus group and the observation of a panel debate, both in case company 6. The focus group consisted of the public affairs and communication team (10 participants in total, including the head of stakeholder engagement and corporate responsibility, whom the researcher had previously interviewed). Case company 6 also invited the researcher to observe a webcast panel debate. The researcher took the role as a “complete observer,” meaning that the observer did not participate in the discussions. This event was conducted as part of stakeholder engagement in order to consult stakeholders on the firm's newly launched sustainability plan.

3.3. Data analysis This research views each organization as one individual case, and therefore each interviewed organization as a unit of analysis (Yin, 2009). The first step in the analysis was to create case study reports for each sampled company, based on the interview transcripts and secondary data from the company's website. After completion of the case analyses, the study conducted a cross-case synthesis to identify relationships and patterns and to verify conclusions (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Table 1 Case companies: sampled food/drink brand owners and retailers. Case number 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Number of employees

Turnover (million £)

Value chain position

Respondent's position

330,000 171,000 218,000 131,000 78,000 13,200

56,400 37,900 24,700 17,700 9900 5100

Brand owner Brand owner Retailer Retailer Retailer Brand owner

1500 562 55 36 N/A N/A N/A

Retailer Brand owner Brand owner Retailer Retailer Brand owner Brand owner

(1) Environmental sustainability expert (1) Chairman packaging and environment group; (2) company buyer packaging (1) Vice president corporate responsibility (1) Packaging development manager (1) Chairman; (2) head of climate change; (3) head of sustainable business (1) Chairman and CEO; (2) head of stakeholder engagement and CR; (3) head of UK recycling; (4) focus group: public affairs and communications; (5) panel debate: CEO and head of corporate responsibility and sustainability and a number of stakeholders. (1) Chairman; (2) head of environment (1) Health, safety, and sustainability manager (1) CEO (1) Sustainability project manager (1) Sustainability project manager (1) Founder/marketing director (1) Founder

803 8723 408 380 150 8 4

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

5

Table 2 Case companies: sampled stakeholders. Case number

Type of stakeholder

Respondent's position

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Trade organization for food and drink manufacturers Trade organization for retailers Trade organization for the packaging industry Government organization for reducing waste and resources Trade organization for retailers Opinion former/expert, independent consultant Food industry consultant focusing primarily on SMEs

(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Director of communications; (2) environment policy manager Head of environment and chair of communications working group at product sustainability forum CEO; (2) director Head of food and drinks program European affairs manager Opinion former/expert Food industry consultant

4.1. The role of strategic ambiguity to overcome CSR challenges and the resulting stakeholder response

3.4. Ensuring good research quality In order to ensure good research quality, this research follows a structured approach, conducting semi-structured recorded interviews and subsequent transcriptions. While the introduction of bias cannot be completely avoided, being aware of this as a weakness and therefore taking precautionary actions will limit the negative effects of this. Furthermore, taking into consideration not only a broad range of companies but also a number of other key stakeholders in the food and drink value chain offers a more solid and broader view of a subject (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In addition, the study achieved triangulation through four sources of data (Yin, 2009): (1) semi-structured interviews, lasting an average of 1 h; (2) one focus group; (3) observation of a stakeholder panel debate; and (4) secondary data from the case companies' websites.

4. Findings As the term “ambiguous” can have negative associations, the researcher stressed during interviews that strategic ambiguity was not about using false claims but phrasing words more generally to allow for multiple understandings. Based on this definition, the interviews reveal that strategic ambiguity is applied in CSR communication (this is disclosed by 16 out of the 20 case companies). The following sections present how the application of strategic ambiguity overcomes challenges in CSR communication, highlighting the stakeholder responses from this communication and the format of strategic ambiguity.

Challenges in CSR communication Complexity

Diversity

Capability

2a) 2b) 3)

4b) 5)

Relationship trust level

Resource intensity

4.1.1. Complexity The complexity of sustainability emerges as an important challenge in CSR communication. Sustainability/CSR has many definitions and may be difficult and confusing to understand; in addition, it might not be known how to best achieve a sustainable solution to an issue. As an example, the chairman of the packaging and environment group at case company 2 explains that CSR communication has evolved over time from being purely technical to becoming much more complex, in terms of both the boundary of responsibility and the sheer number of issues or factors to communicate. Further, the respondent warns that complexity can cause indecision and passivity with stakeholders and suggests that simplification through, for example, ambiguous goals, is important to overcome these drawbacks and to enable efficient and effective communication. Another example of the complexity of sustainability is the challenge of accurately assessing the sustainability of a process and/or product. As firms have progressed from taking a fairly technical approach (focusing

Strategic ambiguity*

1a) 1b)

4a) Strategic / long-term

During the interviews, the respondents discussed the key challenges of CSR communication, the role of strategic ambiguity to overcome those challenges, and how this leads to various stakeholder responses, with the results presented in a framework (Fig. 1), supported by explanations and evidence (Table 3). The framework is explained and discussed in detail below.

Stakeholder response

ACTIVE: Simplification

Innovation

Flexibility

Initiatives

Inclusion

Collaboration

Protection

Co-creation

Resource efficiency PASSIVE:

6a) 6b)

*See

figure 2 for

formats of strategic ambiguity

Endorsement

Fig. 1. Strategic ambiguity as a vehicle to overcome CSR communication challenges.

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

6

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Explanation and evidence to the framework in Fig. 1. Arrow The role of strategic ambiguity number

Evidence/comments

1a)

In a context of complexity, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity offers flexibility in interpretation, thereby encouraging stakeholders to find innovative solutions.

1b)

In a context of complexity, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable passive stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity may simplify a complex topic, allowing more stakeholders to understand and endorse the strategy. In a context of diversity, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity offers flexibility in interpretation, thereby facilitating for multiple opinions to co-exist.

“I think what we've... we've made progress in the last year in coming up with sort of very high-level, generic commitments which drive a lot of change.” “Well, you don't know what the solutions are. You might know what the issue is, but there's no point, you don't want to constrain people's thinking around what the solution is by being too specific too soon.” (Case company 5, Head of climate change) “It commits us to a new challenge: to go beyond neutrality, to no longer strive to ‘do less’ but to seek to make a positive contribution to the world's future.” (Example given by the focus group of Case 6, illustrating how strategic ambiguity can be applied to achieve endorsement from a wide range of stakeholders) “But it is, it's very difficult to try and fight when there's 120 people all with a very strong opinion about what we're doing. Things have to be left a little bit loose, if you have a very strict, very definite plan then you know it's not going to be right somewhere along the line, so you kind of have to leave things quite broad and quite loose so you've got room to maneuver within… you know, have your founding principles and move within those principles as much as you need to is sort of the way that we work.” (Case company 11, Sustainability project manager) “So you know, I think it's, generally speaking, specific messages which we're putting out rather than ambiguous ones, but, you know, we're also ensuring that the sensitivity which we're aware of is recognized in that communication.” (Case company 17, Head of food and drink program) The quote suggests that fact-based communication is preferred, however, on sensitive topics, where not all stakeholders agree or where a stakeholder might even be disadvantaged, communication tends to be more ambiguous. “Yeah, but the reason that we avoid specific targets, is that it might prevent other companies who cannot reach those targets to join the collaborative work.” (Case 18, European affairs manager)

2a)

2b)

In a context of diversity, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable passive stakeholder response. The flexibility in interpretation offered by ambiguous communication allows endorsement from a diverse audience with different priorities and sensitivities.

3)

In a context of varying capabilities among stakeholders, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity can improve inclusiveness for stakeholders lacking experience or knowledge on sustainability. In a context of setting strategic goals, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity offers flexibility in interpretation and application allowing room for various innovations to achieve long-term strategic progress.

4a)

4b)

5)

6a, b)

“Should we just do another five year plan or should we do it longer and less specific because a lot of the progress that has now to be made is very strategic. It actually involves a lot of investment, and redirection of the business. The first five years is straightforward efficiency, group business practice, good housekeeping in energy and water. Now is much more balanced investment by changing plans, which have to be strategic business decisions.” (Case 8, Health, Safety, and sustainability manager) “The bits that we need to keep loose are the long-term vision and the long-term In a context of setting strategic goals, strategic ambiguity can have a positive aims and the long-term strategy because we're changing as a business all the time effect on achieving desirable passive stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity allows flexibility in interpretation and thus tolerates the essence of the strategy to because we're changing as members all the time and the business is the members, so we need to give us room to maneuver as much as we possibly can.” move over time. (Case company 11, Sustainability project manager) In a context of low stakeholder trust, strategic ambiguity can have a positive effect “Yes, I think that for example when we have the annual supplier sustainability summits we have maybe been too specific and recently we have changed our on achieving desirable active stakeholder response. Strategic ambiguity offers communication to more ambiguous, if you like.” protection from too much insight into a firm's strategy or innovations. The aim, however, should be to establish a high level of trust between the focal firm and its (Case 6, Head of stakeholder engagement, and CR) stakeholders to serve as a foundation for successful application of strategic ambiguity. Case company 18 suggests that ambiguous communication with wide appeal In a context where CSR communication is seen as too resource intense due to allows simple and consistent communication that can be addressed across fragmented and/or tailored communication to various stakeholders, strategic audiences, thus saving costs for the firm. ambiguity offers resource efficiency that can have a positive effect on achieving desirable active and passive stakeholder response.

primarily on their own activities with relatively easily measurable issues), to a more holistic strategic approach (considering the broader value chain and a life cycle perspective of products), the assessment of the impact becomes very challenging as many of the issues under debate are not easily measurable. This study therefore suggests that where there are no coherent and widely accepted assessment methods or where a sensible target is not known, specific communication is not possible, and ambiguous wordings can add value. As can be seen in Fig. 1, and explained in Table 3, strategic ambiguity offers flexibility and simplification to a complex context, thereby allowing both passive and active stakeholder responses. Respondents imply that by leaving a message less specific, there is more room for flexibility in interpretation, which can stimulate stakeholders to take initiatives to improve sustainability practices, or to be more innovative finding novel solutions—perhaps in the manufacturing process, transportation of goods, or in product development. Sometimes the aim from the communicating firm is to encourage the stakeholder (often a

supplier) to take these actions on their own, or in other contexts the firm might seek collaboration/co-creation from suppliers, industry colleagues, NGOs, etc., to collectively find innovative solutions. There are, however, stakeholders who might not have the interest to collaborate, or the firm might not seek active engagement from those stakeholders and instead are primarily seeking those stakeholders' passive endorsement, for example, to ensure that consumers remain loyal to the firm and that the firm is perceived as a good citizen in the views of stakeholders like the local community, shareholders, and NGOs. Strategic ambiguity may here offer simplification, allowing stakeholders to get a general understanding of the complex topic, facilitating endorsement. 4.1.2. Stakeholder diversity A firm is surrounded by a multitude of stakeholders, who might possess conflicting goals and objectives, for example, consumers seeking good value for money, investors looking for a good return on investment, the local community expecting employment opportunities, etc.

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Strategic ambiguity, allowing flexibility in interpretation by the various actors, can therefore act as a lubricant to create passive responses (endorsement), as well as active participation and collaboration with several stakeholder groups. It is, however, essential to carefully manage the application of strategic ambiguity in this context so as to avoid creating false consensus. The chairman of case company 6 advises that ambiguous messages therefore need to be backed up with some specific communication to reduce this risk. 4.1.3. Stakeholder capability Varying capabilities of the stakeholders (in terms of possessing experience, knowledge, and resources to make sustainability progress) may also be a challenge that can be addressed by deploying strategic ambiguity. This seems to primarily relate to suppliers, and in the context of the firm seeking active response from partners, to drive the sustainability agenda. The European affairs manager at case company 18 believes that more companies might take action when specific objectives are avoided (as seen in Table 3). Thus, strategic ambiguity in the form of loose goals can prevent the exclusion of less capable companies to collaborate/co-create. 4.1.4. Strategic/long‐term Another motive for using strategic ambiguity is when the communication topic is at a strategic level, taking a long-term holistic perspective. On this note, the focus group at case company 6 suggests that while specific communication is preferred at an operational level, more loosely framed communication is favored at a strategic level, as longer-term goals might require innovation and development of new tools for assessment. The health, safety, and sustainability manager at case company 8 highlights that when a business first starts implementing a CSR/ sustainability agenda, the actions are initially quite operational and focused on good housekeeping and resource efficiency. However, with the achievement of the first “easy” targets, a more strategic approach should be taken, which should be long term and one that adopts a life cycle approach. This involves not just the internal stakeholders, and consequently communication needs to move from specific objectives to more general visions, both to stimulate active stakeholder response as well as ensuring endorsement from the wider stakeholder audience. An organization may, through the application of strategic ambiguity in their published sustainability strategy, be able to change the principle of their strategy as greater understanding of a suitable goal develops. The opinion former at case company 19 emphasizes the importance that strategic ambiguity is founded on a genuine sustainability agenda that is driven from the top of the company, and to balance ambiguous messages with specific communication in order to avoid stakeholder skepticism and any perception of the management as incompetent. 4.1.5. Relationship trust level The relationship trust level seems to be primarily applicable in contexts of active collaboration. The level of trust in the relationship with a stakeholder seems to determine how to best frame communication, but there are slightly different voices on how the relationship between trust and ambiguity works. On the one hand, the head of environment at case company 7 mentions that with a new supplier, they would be more specific as, until the relationship has matured, it is more effective to communicate specific and measurable objectives. As the relationship progresses, the communication becomes more generic, with aspirational goals to stimulate innovation and co-creation. On the other hand, in contexts where an organization approaches several (and possibly competing) suppliers simultaneously, for example, in collaborative supplier meetings, ambiguous communication is preferred in order to avoid exposure of individual stakeholder's intellectual capital (as suggested in Table 3). By contrast, the focus group at case company 6 suggests that a higher level of transparency and specific communication is possible when there is trust in the relationship. However, when the motive is to

7

stimulate innovation, ambiguous communication is considered as more effective. The risk of strategic ambiguity causing stakeholder resistance or portraying the management as incompetent can be significant and needs to be managed. The opinion former at case company 19 suggests, based on her experience with case company 5, that companies have two options here: either being very specific in communication (which might not be viable given the discussed CSR communication challenges) or to first build trust with stakeholders before applying strategic ambiguity: “Instead of getting into the nitty-gritty of the issues, if case company 5 manages to sufficiently convince opinion formers and people who know a bit, and the opinion formers then rely that case company 5 is leading the way, then effectively, they don't necessarily need to go into every detail of all the different issues they're addressing.” (Case company 19, opinion former). 4.1.6. Resource intensity Finally, there is a suggestion that ambiguous communication with wide appeal that can be applied across various stakeholder groups requires fewer resources and could therefore be useful not only for smaller organizations that might lack resources to tailor the communication strategy to different audiences but also for large organizations so as to ensure consistency in communication. Strategic ambiguity could here possibly be seen as an efficient tool to communicate. This section has presented the findings related to why and how strategic ambiguity can aid in overcoming CSR communication challenges, thereby fulfilling research objective 1, as portrayed in Fig. 1. The next section highlights the format of how strategic ambiguity can be applied, as per research objective 2. The format of strategic ambiguity is presented in Fig. 2, illustrating the connection between Figs. 1 and 2, whereby Fig. 2 is a detailed component of Fig. 1. 4.2. Format of strategic ambiguity The interviews reveal that strategic ambiguity is applied at two tiers, as depicted in Fig. 2, where communication to five stakeholder groups (consumers, shareholders, NGOs, suppliers, employees) is portrayed. 4.2.1. Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted across stakeholder groups First, strategic ambiguity is applied in general CSR communication that is standardized and targeted to the wider stakeholder community. This communication context faces substantial challenges due to the wide audience, as presented in the previous section. During the data collection, it emerged that strategic ambiguity in the format of a sustainability program brand is employed to overcome these challenges, allowing a coherent communication strategy across all stakeholders. The firms have thus developed a specific brand, which is related to the corporate and product brands but that is still a brand in its own right and is underpinned by the firm's CSR strategy. To better illustrate the essence of these sustainability program brands, while protecting the anonymity of the case companies, some examples from secondary research of corporate websites are provided. In the UK, for example, the “Plan A” brand of Marks & Spencer is well known. Other examples include “Shared Planet” by Starbucks, “Performance with Purpose” by PepsiCo, and “Brewing a Better Future” by Heineken. Each firm has founded these sustainability program brands on its CSR/sustainability strategy and has used the brand as a communication platform for any interaction with stakeholders regarding goals, objectives, and performance. Taking “Performance with Purpose” as an example, PepsiCo describe it as follows: “Performance with Purpose is our goal to deliver sustained financial performance by: providing a wide range of foods and beverages, from treats to healthy eats; finding innovative ways to minimize

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

8

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Strategic ambiguity * Simplification Flexibility Inclusion Protection Resource efficiency

*See

figure 1

-

Strategic ambiguity targeted across stakeholder groups

Sustainability Program Brand

Consumers: Symbolic, story telling, metaphors, postponement

Shareholders: Emphasisethe financial value of a CSR strategy through key words

NGOs: Policies / values using equivocal language

Suppliers: Supplier codes/ scorecards using equivocal language

Employees: Sustainability champions, inexplicit goals on strategic level to be interpreted into specific objectives on operative levels

Strategic ambiguity tailored for specific stakeholder groups

Fig. 2. The format of strategic ambiguity to diverse stakeholders.

our impact on the environment and lower our costs through energy and water conservation, as well as reduced use of packaging material; providing a safe and inclusive workplace for our employees globally; and respecting, supporting and investing in the local communities in which we operate” (bhttp:// www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Performance-with-PurposeN). This statement uses a very general language that can be interpreted in multiple ways and can thus more easily appeal to various stakeholders. Marks and Spencer, for example, mention how their sustainability program brand “Plan A” is targeted across stakeholder groups: “Through Plan A we are working with our suppliers and employees to inspire our customers, be in touch with the communities we depend on to succeed, innovate to improve things for the better and act with integrity.” (bhttp://corporate.marksandspencer.com/plan-a/about-plan-aN). Measurable objectives under these branded programs tend to be specific, while other messages are far vaguer, lacking a numerical objective and/or the path to get there. A similar approach is observed in several of the case companies participating in this research, with a generic vision of the firm's environmental and social responsibility, broken down to a number of objectives or commitments that are a mix of specific and general statements. The respondents reported that a sustainability program brand is useful as a platform for all CSR communication to allow consistency: “And that has been really helpful because it [the sustainability program brand] provides a banner, a label, you know, a coat-hanger to put all the initiatives on and, you know, it trips off the tongue neatly, it basically communicates what it's about […]. So, if one can find a banner like that I think it's really helpful. I mean, Marks and Spencer's Plan A is another one, it just, everybody knows what it is.” (Case company 7, Chairman).

4.2.2. Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to consumers While strategic ambiguity through a sustainability program brand offers possibilities for standardized CSR communication across stakeholder groups, it is also applicable in a second tier of more tailored communication for individual stakeholder groups. For example, in order to appeal to consumers (who make up a very heterogeneous group), an organization may deploy strategic ambiguity in the format of symbols, storytelling, metaphors, and sometimes in the format of leaving certain information out to allow diverse interpretation. For example, case company 6 engages with consumers in town centers, at music festivals, etc., asking people to pick up and bring empty bottles, and in return, they get a T-shirt made of recycled bottles. The communication to these consumers takes a very symbolic form as the head of recycling expresses: “Do you realize that the item I′m giving you is made out of plastic bottle, […], and did you realize that plastic bottles can be recycled into fabric or into new plastic bottles, that we need them, that we are short of them?” (Case company 6, Head of recycling). In case company 10, one participant suggested that sometimes communication on a topic has to wait until the consumers are ready for such information, which slightly resembles what Denis et al. (2011) describe as “postponement.” As an example, company 10 wanted to change from cardboard to plastic crates, as the total life cycle impact would be improved using the plastic crates; however, as the consumers perceive plastics as environmentally harmful, this communication is postponed until the consumer perception changes. 4.2.3. Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to shareholders In general, the respondents feel that shareholders are not interested in detailed information about the firm's CSR strategy, other than feeling reassured that there is a strategy in place. Consequently, most of the communication to this stakeholder group is general and focuses on the financial benefits of pursuing a CSR strategy. Case company 1 uses the keyword “value creation” in their CSR communication, while in

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

the annual report examples are given how the CSR strategy creates value for shareholders and in other contexts the value creation takes the meaning of value for society or for the environment.

9

well as flexibility, simplification, inclusion, etc., thereby facilitating consensus, and collaboration. 5. Discussion and conclusion

4.2.4. Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to NGOs Another stakeholder group that is significant for a firm's CSR strategy is NGOs; these organizations typically facilitate in respect of gaining a license to operate and in providing expert feedback on environmental and/or social issues. As this study has already reported in general terms, measurable topics are presented with specific communication, whereas longer-term strategy and vision are typically presented through policies and values, which are based on equivocal language. Case company 9, for example, presents their policy on social and environmental impact using very general terms, such as the reference of “being a good neighbor”: “Our social and environmental policies are derived from the commitments expressed in our Values. There are explicit statements in those Values about the community and the environment, but we also refer to sustainable success, fulfilled customers and employees, total quality, integrity and pride – all of which have relevance to our impact on society and the environment. ‘Doing Things Right’ in this context essentially means being a good neighbor, in the widest meaning of that phrase.” (Case company 9's social and environmental impact policy). 4.2.5. Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to suppliers Supplier codes and score cards are used to assess how well the supplier is following sustainable principles. These questions often use equivocal language, allowing flexibility for the supplier in how to respond and flexibility for the firm to interpret the response. A telling example of this is from case company 11: “We basically rely on the buyer's knowledge and judgment and discretion with dealing with these things. Obviously we are in a business so pricing is very important also, so it's very difficult to go for the most ethical, pristine option you can find when your customers then turn round and tell you that it's too expensive and they don't want to buy it. So there's always a balance and we use general terms so we have the flexibility within those terms to make the right decision, the right decision for us and the customers, but we will always try and choose the most ethical option that we can.” (Case company 11, Sustainability project manager). 4.2.6. Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted to employees Communication to internal stakeholders seems to take two approaches, starting with communication applying strategic ambiguity on a strategic, senior management level. The aim of this communication is to inspire richer generation of ideas and to facilitate collaboration between departments through the flexibility in interpretation. Middle management subsequently translates these equivocal directions into more specific objectives where possible, to target employees on an operational level. Some case companies (for example, case companies 5 and 7) employ “sustainability champions” among the employees, whose task is to stimulate and encourage interest, initiatives, and innovation. The messages to these champions are ambiguous allowing the champions to apply the most appropriate interpretation in his/her work context. As these examples illustrate, strategic ambiguity is applied in two tiers, both in CSR communication targeted to the wider stakeholder community, and as there is still heterogeneity even within a stakeholder group, strategic ambiguity is also applied in a more tailored manner to allow for flexibility and diversity within that target group, as depicted in Fig. 2. A sustainability program brand assists the communication on both tiers, offering an element of consistency in the communication as

This section discusses the findings from a theoretical and practical contribution perspective and concludes with recommendations for future research. 5.1. Theoretical implications Strategic ambiguity is applied to overcome a number of challenges in CSR communication, including: 1) The topic of CSR/sustainability is complex, with numerous definitions and limited methods for accurate measurement. 2) The stakeholders of a business are diverse and their goals and objectives might differ from those of the firm. 3) In order to make progress towards sustainable development, actions are required from stakeholders in the form of initiatives, innovation, and collaboration/co-creation; however, the stakeholders' capabilities to do so might differ. 4) CSR communication includes aspirational goals on a strategic level as well as operational objectives. 5) The trust levels between the firm and its stakeholders may vary. 6) To design a CSR, communication strategy can be resource intense, especially if the CSR communication strategy is tailored for different stakeholders. The framework presented in Fig. 1 illustrates how strategic ambiguity offers simplification to the complexity of CSR communication through flexibility in interpretation, inclusiveness of stakeholders of varying capabilities, protection in contexts of low trust in the relationships between the firm and its stakeholders or between stakeholders, and resource efficiency in CSR communication. The outcome is a combination of passive (in terms of stakeholder endorsement) and active (in terms of initiatives, innovation, and collaboration/co-creation) stakeholder response. While the extant literature in strategic ambiguity articulates notions of complex issues (as in point 1 above) and diverse stakeholders (point 2) as motives for applying strategic ambiguity (Davenport & Leitch, 2005; Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010; Eisenberg, 1984; Eisenberg & Witten, 1987; Leitch & Davenport, 2002, 2007), this study broadly confirms these notions in a context spanning beyond organizational change in the public sector with limited stakeholders, to include CSR communication between firms and all their stakeholders. Importantly, however, this study offers significant contributions to the strategic ambiguity literature, as it not only discovers additional drivers for strategic ambiguity but also connects these to active versus passive stakeholder responses. Stakeholder capability (as in point 3) as a motive for the application of strategic ambiguity is a factor not previously suggested in the strategic ambiguity literature. Leitch and Davenport (2002: p. 137) rather suggest the opposite, stating that in order for strategic ambiguity to be effective, the stakeholders need to possess “the internal resources and capability to respond.” This study argues, based on the findings, that strategic ambiguity seems to offer better inclusion of stakeholders in collaborative efforts, as the flexibility in interpretation allows also stakeholders with lower capabilities to buy into the goal from their perspective, thereby stimulating active engagement from stakeholders of varying capabilities. It should be noted that this contradiction to previous research might be linked to the type of communication. While Leitch and Davenport (2002) base their research on a context of static one-way communication, this study discovered the notion of capability in a context of ongoing two-way communication between a firm and its stakeholders. Dynamic two-way communication could possibly enable the less capable stakeholders to enjoy further support from the

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

10

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

focal firm, as a two-way balanced dialog benefits not only the firm but also its stakeholders through the development of capabilities to transform and progress (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, & Herremans, 2010; Herremans, Nazari, & Mahmoudian, 2015; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). This could potentially prevent the pitfalls of indecisions and passivity (Davenport & Leitch, 2005; Denis et al., 2011; Jarzabkowski et al., 2010). A further contribution to the literature is the observed relationship between strategic ambiguity on the one hand, and strategic versus operational communication on the other hand (as in point 4 above). The findings show that strategic ambiguity is better suited for communicating strategic/long-term goals, whereas communication of more operational objectives benefit from clear directions. The respondents' given rationale for using strategic ambiguity for goals is the visionary aspect of those goals, which partly is linked to the rationale of “complexity” in that an appropriate goal might not (yet) be understood, nor (yet) measurable. The management needs to be mindful though not to be seen as incompetent (Leitch & Davenport, 2002), while ambiguous communication should ideally be balanced with specific communication. In addition, strategic ambiguity in strategic communication is linked to the “diversity” aspect in the sense that an appropriate and/or common goal is not agreed upon among the stakeholders. The motive here is thus similar to Eisenberg's (1984) notion on “deniability,” whereby an equivocal vision or goal allows the firm to later deny certain interpretation of the seemingly “outdated” goal, when perhaps a more suitable goal has evolved or in case the goal was not achieved. The trust level in the stakeholder relationship (as per point 5) is another driver for the application of strategic ambiguity where active stakeholder response is sought. Eisenberg (1984) warns that if trust is low, strategic ambiguity can be harmful; however, in situations with a high trust level, clear communication may give stakeholders new insights, leading to a potential negative re-evaluation of the firm. One might question if this is an ethical application of strategic ambiguity, as it may indicate that the firm has managed to build trust from its stakeholders while keeping questionable information away from the public. The findings in this study, however, indicate that the relationship between trust and the application of strategic ambiguity is multifaceted. Trust is the foundation that will allow an organization to successfully apply strategic ambiguity. At the same time, however, strategic ambiguity is recommended in communication contexts of low trust between stakeholders as it offers protection to stakeholders from exposing their intellectual capital to competition. It is thus not necessarily limited to the trust between the firm and its stakeholders, as in the context described by Eisenberg (1984), but in addition the trust between the stakeholders. As sustainability progress might require collaborative networks of stakeholders, of whom several might be in direct competition, this is an important factor. On this note, Hatch and Schultz (2010) studied collaboration and co-creation in a Lego community and discuss the dilemma between dialog and access versus transparency and risk. While Hatch and Schultz conclude that transparency invites benefits in terms of increasing the understanding of other stakeholders' objectives and sharing knowledge and best practices, their context of a firm and primarily its consumers is a much less competitive environment compared to collaboration between (competing) firms in an industry sector. Perhaps, the trust level versus ambiguous communication is also dependent on the expected outcome. The findings in this study suggest that when the stakeholders (suppliers) should meet measurable objectives, then clear communication is advised, whereas when the goal is unknown and perhaps requiring innovation, the respondents agree on ambiguity, irrespective of trust level. A novel addition to motives for strategic ambiguity is the resource intensity of adapting communication to various stakeholder groups. Applying less specific communication opens the opportunity for standardized communication to stakeholders, both where a more passive response is expected as well as when active engagement is sought.

This brings us to research objective 2, where sustainability program brands emerged as a novel approach to enable different stakeholder outcomes from consistent brand communication, allowing both communication resource efficiency and effective stakeholder response. The respondents report that a sustainability program brand that applies a generic slogan and/or brand name that broadly presents the strategic sustainability goal allows the firms to address the wider stakeholder community with one coherent message (brand), which allows for multiple interpretations due to its equivocal nature, facilitating endorsement and collaboration. The sustainability program brand forms a platform for standardized CSR communication to the wider stakeholder community but is also relevant on a second level with a more tailored format of strategic ambiguity, albeit still based on the overall sustainability program brand, to achieve goals for specific stakeholder groups (as depicted in Fig. 2). On this second tier of CSR communication, strategic ambiguity takes the form of, for example, equivocality and postponement, as suggested in previous research (Denis et al., 2011). Dickinson-Delaporte et al. (2010) suggest “playing down” certain features as a form of strategic ambiguity and a similar understanding is seen in this research; however, an opposite observation is made in the format of “emphasizing” certain aspects that are considered positive by the targeted stakeholder group. For example, this “emphasizing” is portrayed in communication to shareholders by stressing how a CSR strategy creates financial value. Following the above discussion, the sustainability program brand facilitates a consistent approach in communication and seems therefore connected to integrated marketing communication (IMC). The IMC literature suggests that consistency and impact can be achieved by strategically combining and streamlining different marketing communication channels and messages (Duncan & Mulhern, 2004; Kitchen & Schultz, 2009), which is also the aim and execution of sustainability program brands. Following the definition of Duncan and Mulhern (2004), IMC is (1) an ongoing process, (2) is dialogic, (3) is dependent on crossfunctional programs, (4) puts a focus on the brand communication as opposed to marketing communication, and (5) involves all stakeholders. All these points are applicable for a sustainability program brand, with the difference that the IMC literature, despite promoting the inclusion of all stakeholders, still focuses empirical research primarily on value creation for the firm and its customers. By contrast, a sustainability program brand is more holistic as it should offer value to social and environmental stakeholders and also through its “ethical” promise. Another literature strand related to the sustainability program brand and IMC is that of the emerging notion of ethical corporate brands (Balmer, Fukukawa, & Gray, 2007; Fukukawa, Balmer, & Gray, 2007), which emphasize strong relationships between the firm and its stakeholders (Balmer et al., 2007) and the importance of the firm ensuring its communication and actions are congruent, as stakeholders otherwise will see communication as mere rhetoric (Balmer, Powell, & Greyser, 2011; Fukukawa et al., 2007). While the ethical corporate brand embodies the overall firm's aims and brands, the sustainability program brand in itself is focused on the sustainability agenda of the firm. This study is, however, not investigating how the sustainability program brand is aligned with the ethical corporate brand and whether the sustainability program brand supports the ethical corporate brand or if it is rather creating confusion; there is another challenge here in that the sustainability program brand might develop through a higher degree of co-creation with external stakeholders, compared to an ethical corporate brand. This intensive interaction with stakeholders poses another challenge to the approach of “one sight, one sound,” as it is no longer the firm that is in sole control of the message delivery (Kitchen & Schultz, 2009). Equally, a sustainability program brand appears to sit well within the emerging service-dominant marketing logic with its wider stakeholder considerations (Lusch & Vargo, 2014Vargo & Lusch, 2004Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Duncan and Moriarty (2006) suggest that IMC and service-

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

dominant marketing logic are connected based on the principles of extended value creation and long-term relationships, where IMC acts as the vehicle for co-creation. This connection may be extended to include the concept of sustainability program brands, based on the logics discussed above on IMC versus sustainability program brands. The brand element offers the chance of emotional attachment, which may strengthen stakeholder relationships (Harris & De Chernatony, 2001; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). The notion of consistency is clearly visible in the sustainability program brand with its overall values and goals that are linked to the brand, which forms the foundation for all communication. Close engagement with key stakeholders, turning them from passive receivers to active co-creators, is key in this context. Merz et al. (2009) suggest, in the context of service-dominant marketing logic, a model of contemporary marketing based on brand value co-creation, where all stakeholders and the firm are resource integrators and collectively co-create a brand's value. On this note, Roos and Gustafsson (2011) find that active participation leads to more stable and longer relationships and that stakeholders that are active participants in the co-creation process enjoy a more positive outcome (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009). Even when the firm is primarily expecting passive response from stakeholders, the sustainability program brand can still stimulate some activity in the form of stakeholders engaging in order to interpret the meaning, improving their recollection of the overall communication (Yannopoulou & Elliott, 2008). Stakeholder involvement requires firms to challenge earlier understandings of stakeholder management principles and embrace the value of the co-creation process and ensure there are resources available to materialize successful outcomes (Lusch & Vargo, 2014; Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). Based on these thoughts, this study proposes that the concept of sustainability program brands, by enabling long-term inclusion and active participation of a range of diverse stakeholders, could serve as an important tool within the domain of service-dominant marketing logic. This research is thus responding to calls for research on different types of brand value co-creation practices (Merz et al., 2009). As a word of warning, it is mentioned that misinterpretation of messages can cause negative value creation. With strategic ambiguity promoting flexibility in interpretation, the firm has limited control of how its stakeholders understand the message. While previous scholars in strategic ambiguity list antecedents for strategic ambiguity, this research transforms these to more concrete challenges and furthermore demonstrates how strategic ambiguity can address those challenges, leading to passive or active stakeholder response. The active stakeholder responses are particularly interesting as other researchers have emphasized that in order to achieve viable progress in sustainable development (collaborative) innovation is a pre-requisite (Eccles & Serafeim, 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2006). The paper further adds to the academic literature on corporate communication on CSR/sustainability to the wider stakeholder community. For example, Du et al. (2010) present a conceptual framework on what to communicate and which channels to use, raising the issue of communicating CSR to diverse stakeholders. This paper adds to the CSR communication literature where there have been numerous calls for further research into CSR communication, and specifically beyond consumers as the target for communication (Blombäck & Scandelius, 2013; Brunk, 2010; Öberseder et al., 2013; Podnar, 2008; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). It further adds to the CSR communication literature by seeking methods for communication to diverse stakeholders not only to disseminate information but also to stimulate active collaboration and co-creation (Du et al., 2010; Golob et al., 2013; Podnar, 2008). The collaboration aspect is closely related to the stakeholder management literature, where numerous scholars (Corus & Ozanne, 2012; Eccles & Serafeim, 2013; Freeman, 1984; Minoja, 2012; Porter &

11

Kramer, 2006; Sakarya et al., 2012; Savage et al., 2010; Waligo et al., 2014) emphasize the importance of effective communication to stimulate active stakeholder engagement; however, the format of such communication is previously not well specified. Thus, the findings in this paper contribute also to stakeholder management theories. 5.2. Practical implications The presented CSR communication framework provides an easy-touse strategic tool for business managers wishing to create efficient and effective communication on sustainability to their multitude of stakeholders. Strategic ambiguity could take the format of a sustainability program brand based on equivocal words or phrases that allow diverse stakeholders to attach different meanings to the communication, thus permitting multiple interpretations to co-exist. Setting innovation goals that are not too specific, possibly combined with certain specifications, for example, on budget, can allow for improved engagement and freedom to develop new ideas. The sustainability program brands should be fully integrated across the organization, being based on genuine commitment and supported from senior management in order to deliver well and to establish trust with the stakeholders. On this note, it is also important to reemphasize the importance of ensuring a fully ethical application of strategic ambiguity as suggested in previous research. Strategic ambiguity must not involve untruthful, inconsistent, or contradictory communication but should use wordings that allow diverse stakeholders to find common ground and thus enable collaboration. As previous research has advised (Leitch & Davenport, 2002), strategic ambiguity is more likely to be efficient if the targeted stakeholders have incentives to engage. 5.3. Limitations While the research has a number of strengths as highlighted above, there are of course possible limitations to the research process, as listed below: 1) External validity or generalizability is often considered as a weak point in qualitative research, especially if there is only one case company. This study includes 20 case companies, and while this design does not allow as deep research as for a single case company study, it allows a broad approach searching for evidence across a number of food and drink manufacturers and retailers in Western Europe, thus allowing some generalizability within the Western European food and drink value chain, however not beyond this industry sector and not beyond Western Europe. 2) The research primarily takes the standpoint from one focal organization and thus takes a simplistic perspective, as opposed to taking a network approach to stakeholders (Roloff, 2007; Rowley, 1997). 3) Linked to the above limitation, the study does not include an exploration of how the stakeholder audiences perceive strategic ambiguity. As sustainability communication can be viewed as a social process, it is important to research also the reception of sustainability communication (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010). Some of the limitations listed here offer an interesting departure point for future research, which is discussed in detail in the next section. 5.4. Further research This research examines the motives behind, and the format of, the application of strategic ambiguity; however, it does not consider the resulting interpretation by the targeted stakeholders. Further research aimed at assessing how effectively strategic ambiguity can fulfill such motives would greatly validate the findings. The research could be

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

12

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

conducted, for example, as an experiment, or as a longitudinal study reviewing an ambiguous communication strategy and its effect. The emerging concept of sustainability program brands as a form of strategic ambiguity is novel and would benefit from further research and validation. There is very limited research in this area, as the vast majority of research into brands concerns either product brands or corporate brands. Building on insights from previous research (Balmer & Greyser, 2002; Balmer et al., 2007, 2011; Fukukawa et al., 2007; Kitchen & Schultz, 2009), it would be interesting to further explore how to align communication from a sustainability program brand with the overall corporate brand communication to ensure consistency and to advance the understanding of the connection between IMC and sustainability program brands. On this note, additional research is needed to improve knowledge on how to ensure communication consistency in a context where the firm is not fully in control of message delivery due to stakeholders' co-creation of communication (Kitchen & Schultz, 2009). In addition, it would be beneficial to further explore how a sustainability program brand can contribute to the literature in servicedominant marketing logic (Lusch & Vargo, 2014; Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008), based on the notion of creating resilient relationships with value creation to the extended stakeholder context. Another angle of interest for future research is the management of the sustainability program brand, especially the notion of co-creation taking a heuristic or dynamic orientation to achieve value creation for the firm and its stakeholders (Högström, Gustafsson, & Tronvoll, 2015). Following the diverse findings on how the level of trust in a relationship is linked to the application of strategic ambiguity and the suggestion of the importance of reducing equivocality in a relationship, as suggested in the conceptual paper by Driessen et al. (2013), further research into this specific connection would be of interest. The focus of such research could be the process of the formation of a collaborative relationship and specifically when and how strategic ambiguity can add value in this development. The presented framework could also benefit from further research into the relationship between the CSR communication challenges and the pitfalls of strategic ambiguity, as suggested by Davenport and Leitch (2005). This connection was not a key focus of this research; however, some interesting findings evolved, especially on the note of trust versus stakeholder resistance and management incompetence. This research is limited to the food and drink value chain in Western Europe. Previous research on CSR communication reveals that stakeholder selection and engagement are culturally specific (Habisch, Patelli, Pedrini, & Schwartz, 2011), and one could question whether this applies also for strategic ambiguity. It would therefore be interesting to study the applicability of the framework across different countries. Likewise, it would be beneficial to validate the framework also in other industry contexts. Appendix A. Protocol for the semi-structured interviews 1. What is your sustainability strategy? 2. Is sustainability integrated into the corporate strategy? How? Why/ why not? 3. What are the boundaries of the responsibility of sustainability of your organization? 4. Is sustainability part of your brand? How? Why? 5. Do your sustainability objectives need collaboration and/or cocreation from any of the stakeholders? Which stakeholders? Why? What do you expect from them? 6. What is your CSR/sustainability communication strategy to achieve your sustainability objectives? 7. What are the main challenges in this communication? How do you overcome these communication challenges? 8. How are the communication objectives translated into messages (describe the rationale behind the choice of words/language/symbols/framing) for communication with stakeholders?

9. Is the choice of words and framing different for different stakeholders? How and why/why not? 10. Do you use more specific or vaguer communication, leaving it up to the stakeholders to make the interpretation? Why/why not? 11. What is the expected outcome? 12. Do you have a clear strategy on what each stakeholder category should do or do you leave this to them to reach the goal? 13. Do the stakeholders take the expected actions? Why/why not? 14. How do your stakeholders approach you in their CSR/sustainability communication? 15. Are you familiar with the term strategic ambiguity [definition provided]? Would you say that your CSR/sustainability communication strategy involves strategic ambiguity? How? Why?

References Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, S. Sutherland, & Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 1: Theory, responsibility and engagement. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Balmer, J., & Greyser, S. (2002). Managing the multiple identities of the corporation. California Management Review, 44(3), 72–86. Balmer, J., Fukukawa, K., & Gray, E. (2007). The nature and management of ethical corporate identity: A commentary on corporate identity, corporate social responsibility and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 7–15. Balmer, J., Powell, S., & Greyser, S. (2011). Explicating ethical corporate marketing. Insight from the BP deepwater horizon catastrophe: The ethical brand that exploded and then imploded,. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 1–14. Blombäck, A., & Scandelius, C. (2013). Corporate heritage in CSR communication: A means to responsible brand image? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(3), 362–382. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297–318. Brunk, K.H. (2010). Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions—A consumer perspective of corporate ethics. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 255–262. Contractor, N.S., & Ehrlich, M.C. (1993). Strategic ambiguity in the birth of a loosely coupled organization: The case of a $50 million experiment. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(3), 251–281. Corus, C., & Ozanne, J.L. (2012). Stakeholder engagement: Building participatory and deliberative spaces in subsistence markets. Journal of Business Research, 65(12), 1728–1735. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L.J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of the shared value concept. California Management Review, 56(2). Davenport, S., & Leitch, S. (2005). Circuits of power in practice: Strategic ambiguity as delegation of authority,. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1603–1623. Dawar, N., & Stornelli, J. (2013). Rebuilding the relationship between manufacturers and retailers. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(2), 83–90. Denis, J. -L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2011). Escalating indecision: Between reification and Strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22(1), 225–244. Dickinson-Delaporte, S., Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). Building corporate reputation with stakeholders—Exploring the role of message ambiguity for social marketers. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11–12), 1856–1874. Dowling, G. (2004). Corporate reputations: Should you compete on yours. California Management Review, 46(3), 19–36. Driessen, P.H., Kok, R.A.W., & Hillebrand, B. (2013). Mechanisms for stakeholder integration: Bringing virtual stakeholder dialogue into organizations. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1465–1472. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximising business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. (2006). How integrated marketing communication's touchpoints can operationalize the service-dominant logic. In R.F. Lusch, & S.L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing, dialog, debate and directions. ME: Sharpe, Inc. Duncan, T., & Mulhern, F. (Eds.). (2004). A white paper on the status. Scope and Future of IMC, IMC Symposium, Northwestern University and University of Denver: McGraw Hill. Eccles, R., & Serafeim, G. (2013). The performance frontier. Harvard Business Review, 91(5). Eisenberg, E., & Witten, M. (1987). Reconsidering openness in organizational communication. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 418–426. Eisenberg, E.M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Frischherz, B. (2010). Metaphors of sustainability: A study of metaphors in the public discourse on sustainability. BRASS Working Paper. 62, (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.187.1229&rep=rep1&type=pdf, [Accessed on 12. 03.14]).

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037

C. Scandelius, G. Cohen / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Fukukawa, K., Balmer, J.M.T., & Gray, E.R. (2007). Mapping the interface between corporate identity, ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 1–5. Golob, U., Podnar, K., Elving, W.J., Ellerup Nielsen, A., Thomsen, C., & Schultz, F. (2013). CSR communication: Quo Vadis? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 176–192. Gregory, A. (2007). Involving stakeholders in developing corporate brands: The communication dimension. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(1–2), 59–73. Gurau, C. (2013). Developing an environmental corporate reputation on the Internet. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(5), 522–537. Guthey, E., & Morsing, M. (2014). CSR and the mediated emergence of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 555–569. Gyrd-Jones, R.I., & Kornum, N. (2013). Managing the co-created brand: Value and cultural complementarity in online and offline multi-stakeholder ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1484–1493. Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M., & Schwartz, C. (2011). Different talks with different folks: A comparative survey of stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the US. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 381–404. Harris, F., & De Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand performance. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 441–456. Hatch, M.J., & Schultz, M. (2010). Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand governance. Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 590–604. Herremans, I., Nazari, J.A., & Mahmoudian, F. (2015). Stakeholder relationships, engagement, and sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 1–19 (March 2015, First online). Högström, C., Gustafsson, A., & Tronvoll, B. (2015). Strategic brand management: Archetypes for managing brands through paradoxes. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 391–404. Ind, N., Iglesias, O., & Schultz, M. (2013). Building Brands together: Emergence and outcomes of co-creation. California Management Review, 55(3), 5–26. Ingenbleek, P., Binnekamp, M., & Goddijn, S. (2007). Setting standards for CSR: A comparative case study on criteria-formulating organizations. Journal of Business Research, 60, 539–548. Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations, 63(2), 219–248. Jones, T., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155 (serial online). Kim, C.H., Amaeshi, K., Harris, S., & Suh, C. -J. (2013). CSR and the National Institutional Context: The case of South Korea. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2581–2591. Kitchen, P.J., & Schultz, D.E. (2009). IMC: New horizon/false dawn for a marketplace in turmoil? Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(2/3), 197–204. Lehtinen, U. (2012). Sustainability and local food procurement: A case study of Finnish public catering. British Food Journal, 114(8), 1053–1071. Leitch, S., & Davenport, S. (2002). Strategic ambiguity in communicating public sector change. Journal of Communication Management, 7(2), 129–139. Leitch, S., & Davenport, S. (2007). Strategic ambiguity as a discourse practice: The role of keywords in the discourse on sustainable biotechnology. Discourse Studies, 9(1), 43–61. Lourenco, I.C., Branco, M.C., Curto, J.D., & Eugenio, T. (2012). How does the market value corporate sustainability performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 417–428. Lusch, Robert F., & Vargo, Stephen L. (2014). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. Routledge. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 956–977. McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., Vargo, S.L., Dagger, T., & Sweeney, J.C. (2009). Customers as resource integrators: Styles of customer co-creation. Naples Forum on Services, 24. Merz, M.A., He, Y., & Vargo, S.L. (2009). The evolving brand logic: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 328–344. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, K., Joseph, L., & Apker, J. (2000). Strategic ambiguity in the role development process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(3), 193–214. Minoja, M. (2012). Stakeholder management theory, firm strategy, and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), 67–82. Moon, J. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 15, 296–306. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338. Neville, B., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), 377–391. Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B., & Murphy, P.E. (2013). CSR practices and consumer perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1839–1851.

13

Paul, J., & Strbiak, C.A. (1997). The ethics of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Communication, 34(2), 149–159. Perez, A., & Rodriguez del Bosque, I. (2012). The role of CSR in the corporate identity of banking service providers. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 145–166. Perez-Batres, L.A., Miller, V.V., & Pisani, M.J. (2010). CSR, sustainability and the meaning of global reporting for Latin American corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 193–209. Podnar, K. (2008). Communicating corporate social responsibility—Guest editorial. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 75–81. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92. Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J., & Carter, C.R. (2009). Food for thought: Social versus environmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(4), 38–54. Ritvala, T., & Salmi, A. (2011). Network mobilizers and target firms: The case of saving the Baltic Sea. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 887–898. Roloff, J. (2007). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 233–250. Roos, I., & Gustafsson, A. (2011). The influence of active and passive customer behavior on switching in customer relationships. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 21(5), 448–464. Rowley, T.J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of Stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910. Sakarya, S., Bodur, M., Yildirim-Öktem, O., & Selekler-GÖksen, N. (2012). Social alliances: Business and social enterprise collaboration for social transformation. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1710–1720. Savage, G.T., Bunn, M.D., Gray, B., Xiao, Q., Wang, S., Wilson, E.J., & Williams, E.S. (2010). Stakeholder collaboration: Implications for Stakeholder theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 21–26. Schultz, F., & Wehmeier, S. (2010). Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within corporate communications: Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives,. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 9–29. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243. Sibbel, A. (2012). Public nutrition and the role of the food industry. British Food Journal, 114(6), 784–797. Sotorrio, L.L., Sanchez, J.L., & Fernandez (2008). Corporate social responsibility of the most highly reputed European and North American firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 379–390. Tracy, K., & Ashcraft, C. (2001). Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(4), 297–316. Ulmer, R.R., & Sellnow, T.L. (2000). Consistent question of ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 143–155. UNEP (2007). Life Cycle Management - A Business Guide to Sustainability978-92-807-27722. Van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J., & Mitchell, T. (2007). Introduction to special topic forum—The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145–1154. Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17. Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. Vurro, C., Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2009). Shaping sustainable value chains: Network determinants of supply chain governance models. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 607–621. Waligo, V.M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2014). The leadership–stakeholder involvement capacity nexus in stakeholder management. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1342–1352 (July). Wexler, M.N. (2009). Strategic ambiguity in emergent coalitions: The triple bottom line. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(1), 62–77. Yannopoulou, N., & Elliott, R. (2008). Open versus closed advertising texts and interpretive communities. International Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 9–36. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research—Design and methods (4th ed.)5. Thousand Oaks, California, US: Sage Inc bhttp://corporate.marksandspencer.com/plan-a/about-plan-aN, (accessed 14.1.15). bhttp://www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Performance-with-PurposeN, (accessed on 11.2.15).

Please cite this article as: Scandelius, C., & Cohen, G., Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.037