CSR and Stakeholder Dialogue: A Case Study of Sugar Cane Company in Thailand

Authors

  • Suwichit Chaidaroon Nanyang Technological University
  • Kawpong Polyorat Khon Kaen University
  • Kawpong Polyorat Khon Kaen University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v3i8.263

Keywords:

CSR, Stakeholder Dialogue, Case Study Research, Thailand

Abstract

Engaging in a genuine dialogue with stakeholders seems to be a pressing issue that corporate communicators are facing in implementing their CSR initiatives (Hess, 2008; Kaptein & van Tulder, 2003; O'Rordan & Fairbrass, 2008). However, communication features of stakeholder dialogue have yet been empirically delineated. Based on a qualitative case study of CSR initiatives by a sugar cane processing conglomerate in Thailand directed towards the sugar cane farmers as their beneficiary stakeholders, this paper attempts to characterize the lack of stakeholder dialogue from both parties. Group interviews with managers and in-depth interviews with farmers were conducted separately to identify their different perceptions, concerns, and the expected nature of dialogue. Findings from the study highlight the needs for participatory feature of CSR dialogue (Maclagan, 1999) as well as the perceived power imbalance that may exist in implementing CSR initiatives. Implications are also provided for corporate communicators to engage in genuine dialogue with their stakeholders.

 

Author Biographies

  • Suwichit Chaidaroon, Nanyang Technological University
    Suwichit Chaidaroon, Ph.D., is currently assistant professor in the division of public and promotional communication, Nanyang Technological University.
  • Kawpong Polyorat, Khon Kaen University
    Dr. Kawpong Polyorat is assistant professor in the Faculty of Management Science, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
  • Kawpong Polyorat, Khon Kaen University
    Dr. Kawpong Polyorat is assistant professor in the Faculty of Management Science, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

References

Anderson, R., Baxter, L. A., & Cissna, K. N. (Eds.) (2004). Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter, L. A. (1988). A dialectical perspective of communication strategies in relationship development. In S. Duck, Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 257-273). New York: Wiley.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Korchun, D., & Sankar, S. (2009). Strenthening stakeholder-company relationshs through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethcis , 85, 257-272.

Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue (L. Nichol, Ed.). London: Routledge.

Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou (R.G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2008). Stakeholder dialogue and organisational learning: Changing relationships between companies and NGOs. Business Ethics: A European Perspective , 17, 35- 46.

Chaidaroon, S. S. (2003). When shyness is not incompetence: A case of Thai communication competence. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 195-208

Cochran, P. L. (2007). The evolution of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 50, 449-454.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hess, D. (2008). The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance regulation: Disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly , 18, 447-482.

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York: Doubleday.

Johannesen, R. L. (1971). The emerging concept of communication as dialogue. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 57, 373-382.

Kaptein, M., & van Tulder, R. (2003). Toward effective stakholder dialogue. Business and Society Review , 108, 203-224.

Maclagan, P. (1999). Corporate social responsibility as a participative process. Business Ethics: A European Review , 8, 43-49.

Okoye, A. (2009). Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 613-627.

O'Rordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR), Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics , 83, 745-758.

Pedersen, E. R. (2006). Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: How companies transtlate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review, 111(2), 137-163.

Potter, W. (1996). An analysis of thinking and research about qualitative methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Polyorat, K. (2011),”Decision to grow sugar canes versus competitive crops: A case study of Thailand,” Journal of Global Business and Technology, 7 (2), 39-46.

Polyorat, K., & Tenglolai, A. (2009), “Sugar cane farmers’ adoption of dual-row farming technology: The roles of family decision making, word-of-mouth, and farmers’ Size,” in the Proceeding of the Global Business and Technology Association Eleventh Annual International Conference.1011-1018.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Double Day.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stewart, J. (1978). Foundations of dialogic communication. The Quarterly Journal of

Speech, 64, 183-201.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Suksawat, J., Piewthongngam, K., & Tenglolai, A. (2008). The use of multi-criteria approach to selet cane growers for supplier development program. Proeeding of the Global Business and Technology Associations Tenth Annual International Conference (pp. 1232-1239). Madrid, Spain: The Global Busienss and Technology Association.

van de Kerkhof, M. (2006). Making difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogue. Policy Sciences , 39, 279-299.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloads

Published

2013-08-31

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 8 (2013): August

Section

Article

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).