IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i5p2024-d329227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporate Perspectives on Responsibility and Sustainability in the Food System: A (Food) Communicative-Constructivist Viewpoint

Author

Listed:
  • Tina Bartelmeß

    (Department of Communication and Engagement in Agricultural, Nutritional and Environmental Sciences, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, 35390 Giessen, Germany)

  • Jasmin Godemann

    (Department of Communication and Engagement in Agricultural, Nutritional and Environmental Sciences, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, 35390 Giessen, Germany)

Abstract

This study examines how corporations in the German food industry understand and perceive communication as a corporate social responsibility (CSR) dimension, how they communicate about food-related sustainability, and how this corporate food communication can lead to sustainability-oriented change in action-guiding institutions. This study takes a communicative-constructivist viewpoint that does not focus on the extent to which the communicated corresponds to the actual action but rather on how communication and communicatively constructed institutions can shape, influence, or constitute the action. A comparative qualitative case study approach reveals how two deviant cases within the producing and processing food industry assume responsibility through food communication and identifies five underlying roles of communication that, in their case-specific variations yield in two different conceptualizations of perceiving responsibility through communication. The analysis and interpretation of data, in the reference frame of communicative institutionalism, outline promising prospects on how corporate food communication can contribute to institutional changes that guide decisions and actions for sustainable development of the food system. Furthermore, the findings highlight food quality as a relevant communication resource for food-related discussions about sustainability that cross systems in the context of the food system and transforms an institution in such a way that it now also refers to aspects of sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Tina Bartelmeß & Jasmin Godemann, 2020. "Corporate Perspectives on Responsibility and Sustainability in the Food System: A (Food) Communicative-Constructivist Viewpoint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:2024-:d:329227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/2024/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/2024/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jens Newig & Daniel Schulz & Daniel Fischer & Katharina Hetze & Norman Laws & Gesa Lüdecke & Marco Rieckmann, 2013. "Communication Regarding Sustainability: Conceptual Perspectives and Exploration of Societal Subsystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(7), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Andrew Crane & Sarah Glozer, 2016. "Researching Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Themes, Opportunities and Challenges," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(7), pages 1223-1252, November.
    3. Jan Bebbington, 2001. "Sustainable development: a review of the international development, business and accounting literature," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 128-157, June.
    4. Gonzalo Gamboa & Zora Kovacic & Marina Di Masso & Sara Mingorría & Tiziano Gomiero & Marta Rivera-Ferré & Mario Giampietro, 2016. "The Complexity of Food Systems: Defining Relevant Attributes and Indicators for the Evaluation of Food Supply Chains in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Friederike Schultz & Itziar Castelló & Mette Morsing, 2013. "The Construction of Corporate Social Responsibility in Network Societies: A Communication View," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(4), pages 681-692, July.
    6. Joep P. Cornelissen & Rodolphe Durand & Peer Fiss & John C. Lammers & Eero Vaara, 2015. "Putting Communication Front and Center in Institutional Theory and Analysis," Post-Print hal-02313194, HAL.
    7. Cornelissen, J. P. & Durand, Rodolphe & Fiss, Peer C. & Lammers, John & Vaara, Eero, 2015. "Putting Communication Front and Center in Institutional Theory and Analysis," HEC Research Papers Series 1168, HEC Paris.
    8. Hallie Eakin & John Patrick Connors & Christopher Wharton & Farryl Bertmann & Angela Xiong & Jared Stoltzfus, 2017. "Identifying attributes of food system sustainability: emerging themes and consensus," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 757-773, September.
    9. Reilly, Anne H. & Hynan, Katherine A., 2014. "Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media: It's not easy (really) being green," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 747-758.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tian, Xiaocong, 2022. "The art of rhetoric: Host country political hostility and the rhetorical strategies of foreign subsidiaries in developing economies," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(5).
    2. Hossfeld, Heiko, 2018. "Legitimation and institutionalization of managerial practices. The role of organizational rhetoric," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 9-21.
    3. Uhrenholdt Madsen, Christian & Boch Waldorff, Susanne, 2019. "Between advocacy, compliance and commitment: A multilevel analysis of institutional logics in work environment management," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 12-25.
    4. Dante I. Leyva-de la Hiz & J. Alberto Aragon-Correa & Andrew G. Earle, 2022. "Innovating for Good in Opportunistic Contexts: The Case for Firms’ Environmental Divergence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 705-721, April.
    5. Andrew Crane & Sarah Glozer, 2016. "Researching Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Themes, Opportunities and Challenges," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(7), pages 1223-1252, November.
    6. Metz, Ashley & Hartley, Paul, 2020. "Scenario development as valuation: Opportunities for reflexivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    7. Alex Bitektine & Patrick Haack & Joel Bothello & Johanna Mair, 2020. "Inhabited Actors: Internalizing Institutions through Communication and Actorhood Models," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 885-897, June.
    8. Francisco Díez-Martín & Alicia Blanco-González & Camilo Prado-Román, 2021. "The intellectual structure of organizational legitimacy research: a co-citation analysis in business journals," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1007-1043, May.
    9. Alfonso Siano & Francesca Conte & Sara Amabile & Agostino Vollero & Paolo Piciocchi, 2016. "Communicating Sustainability: An Operational Model for Evaluating Corporate Websites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Christensen, Lars Thøger & Morsing, Mette & Thyssen, Ole, 2020. "Timely hypocrisy? Hypocrisy temporalities in CSR communication," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 327-335.
    11. Renate E. Meyer & Eero Vaara, 2020. "Institutions and Actorhood as Co‐Constitutive and Co‐Constructed: The Argument and Areas for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 898-910, June.
    12. Catharina Høgdal & Andreas Rasche & Dennis Schoeneborn & Levinia Scotti, 2021. "Exploring Student Perceptions of the Hidden Curriculum in Responsible Management Education," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 173-193, January.
    13. Virva Salmivaara & Ewald Kibler, 2020. "“Rhetoric Mix†of Argumentations: How Policy Rhetoric Conveys Meaning of Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(4), pages 700-732, July.
    14. Elizabeth Goodrick & Lee C. Jarvis & Trish Reay, 2020. "Preserving a Professional Institution: Emotion in Discursive Institutional Work," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 735-774, June.
    15. Gabriel Cachón‐Rodríguez & Alicia Blanco‐González & Camilo Prado‐Román & Francisco Diez‐Martin, 2021. "Sustainability actions, employee loyalty, and the awareness: The mediating effect of organization legitimacy," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(7), pages 1730-1739, October.
    16. De Luca, Francesco & Iaia, Lea & Mehmood, Asad & Vrontis, Demetris, 2022. "Corrigendum to “Can social media improve stakeholder engagement and communication of Sustainable Development Goals? A cross-country analysis”," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    17. Andersen, Sophie Esmann & Høvring, Christiane Marie, 2020. "CSR stakeholder dialogue in disguise: Hypocrisy in story performances," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 421-435.
    18. Fabrizio Ferraro & Daniel Beunza, 2018. "Creating Common Ground: A Communicative Action Model of Dialogue in Shareholder Engagement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1187-1207, December.
    19. Eero Vaara & Laura Fritsch, 2022. "Strategy as language and communication: Theoretical and methodological advances and avenues for the future in strategy process and practice research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(6), pages 1170-1181, June.
    20. König, Andreas & Fehn, Angela & Puck, Jonas & Graf-Vlachy, Lorenz, 2017. "Primary or complex? Towards a theory of metaphorical strategy communication in MNCs," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 270-285.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:2024-:d:329227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.