How to Better “Frame” Corporate Sustainability
For corporate sustainability to truly take hold in North America, it must counter the firmly-entrenched shareholder-primacy framework.
This corporate view has held sway for more than a century, further solidified by economist Milton Friedman in the 1970s. He stated that economics was a science and adapted his pronouncements into the Chicago School of Economic Theory. Unfortunately, many of the theories didn’t work out so well. There are too many unknowns to take such a fundamentalist approach.
But the belief lives on and it’s difficult to change minds. The capitalist economic structure has been evolving for roughly 250 years. It’s had great success and devastating failures. We’re now in a failure stage.
CSR advocates have done a great job of educating citizens, business leaders, and governments around the world on the need for proactive, innovative corporate decision-making. But Friedman’s “Chicago School” economics has close to 50 years of empirical studies behind it and is the major hurdle facing sustainable development advocates in North America today.
Forget Roger Rabbit – Is Corporate Purpose Being Framed?
In a 2013 New York Law School essay, Tamara C. Belinfanti uses Roger Rabbit to illustrate how corporate purpose has been successfully framed to gain wide social acceptance.
Tamara defines framing as primarily concerned with “meaning construction” stating, “the manner in which a problem is framed often affects how one perceives and responds to the problem.”
To be successful, a frame must:
1/ Be robust, complete, and thorough;
2/ Tap into larger societal belief and value systems;
3/ Catch the wave of the era’s culture change dynamic;
4/ Be relevant, credible, and resonate with the audience.
Success of the Shareholder-Primacy Frame
The shareholder-primacy frame really took hold conceptually in the 1970s leading to the “greed is good” 80s & 90s. Friedman wrote his famous essay on corporate purpose published by the New York Times. He claimed that the purpose of corporations is to their shareholder “owners.” Period.
According to Tamara, the shareholder-primacy view has all the features of a successful frame:
1/ It states the problem robustly, completely, and thoroughly. What is a corporation’s purpose? To make a profit for shareholders.
2/ It taps into larger societal culture, values, and beliefs. They use language such as “owner” to describe shareholders, tapping into deeply held Western values associating property ownership with freedom. Similarly, shareholder “rights” and “voting” are also universal truths in Western society. Tamara writes, “this heightens the salience of the shareholder-primacy story and makes it harder to discount in the minds of society.”
3/ It caught the wave of the era’s social change dynamic. The 60s were over and it was time for boomers to go to work. Friedman’s economic theory capitalized on the Baby Boom generation who entered the workforce in the 70s and 80s. Movies of the era include “Wall Street” where “greed is good” and “Barbarians at the Gates” which chronicled the leveraged-buyout craze.
4/ It’s relevant because corporations have become such a significant segment of modern society. It’s credible because it has decades of studies, opinions, and financial media to back it up. And it resonates with larger societal values and beliefs such as democracy, freedom, ownership, and success.
Challenges to the CSR Counter Frame
CSR’s language is still in the development stage in several countries in the West. While making great gains in North America, it still hasn’t reached the level of acceptance of shareholder primacy. That’s due, in part, to the decades-long head start shareholder primacy enjoys. But if we analyze the shareholder-primacy frame, and why it works so effectively, we can accelerate the process by imitating its format. We can then dislodge the shareholder-primary frame and install a new one.
Tamara writes, “the perceived significance of sustainability’s message may be impeded at the outset by certain language choices which, either failed to link to broader society values or belief systems, or link to some societal value that is of relatively limited salience within the larger belief system. As such, the frame has a high probability of being discounted. It’s simply not going to change minds.”
Language is one of the primary keys to conceptualization. If we change the language; we can construct a new frame among larger society.
So how do CSR advocates convince those who hold the shareholder-primacy belief to discard it and adopt a new version?
Let’s take a look.
1/ Are CSR concepts robust, complete, and thorough?
CSR concepts are:
Robust. Corporations are responsible to all stakeholders, not just shareholders. They are a part of a community and should be held responsible as such. It’s about “good corporate citizenry.”
Incomplete. The language is still developing. While the concepts are prognostic, the wide range of social issues makes it difficult to express simply to work as a frame. Empirical data is being generated through case studies which showcase corporate successes, making it difficult for skeptics to discard.
Tamara notes that, “producing evidence that cuts against shareholder primacy may not be enough to influence or overcome the shareholder primacy frame…studies show that once a frame has been successfully constructed, [when] people encounter facts that do not fit the adopted frame, they discard these facts and keep the frame intact rather than discard the frame.”
Thorough and motivating. CSR concepts are thorough, but again, wide ranging and difficult to define in a frame. The sheer breadth of the concepts makes it difficult to conceptualize.
The call-to-action is clear and motivating; “Corporations must act now and ‘do their part’ to solve climate change, pollution, and poverty.”
2/ Does the language tie into larger beliefs and value hierarchies?
It’s a split decision regarding the language used to convey the need for corporate sustainability.
On a positive note, words and phrases such as “responsibility, shared value, long-term value, and sustainable development,” tie into deeply held Western values and beliefs. For example, if you were to conduct a poll on whether “Corporations should be responsible for their actions,” you would likely get a positive overall response. Particularly, among skeptics on the right of the political spectrum.
On the negative side, I think the word “social” in corporate social responsibility has a negative correlation with those on the political right. It’s too close to “socialism” which automatically, and subconsciously, evokes strong emotions in Canada and the United States. It may work in European social democracies, but not Canada, and even less so in the US. Similarly, Tamara points out that triple-bottom-line doesn’t appear to be tied to any wider societal beliefs or values.
I use corporate sustainability because it taps into the strong belief among conservatives and centrists of “personal responsibility.” Wayne Visser suggests “Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility (CSR)” in his book The Age of Sustainability.
If we’re going to dislodge the shareholder primacy frame, we must speak the language of the center-right to attain overwhelming support.
3/ Does it tap into the era’s social change dynamic?
Boomers are retiring, or nearing retirement age. Younger generations are driving the corporate sustainability initiative. Lack of trust in corporations resembles those held during the Great Depression. People are genuinely looking for solutions to corporate malfeasance no matter the political stripe.
4/ Is it relevant? Credible? And does it resonate with larger society?
Corporate sustainability is relevant for the times. There are a multitude of calls for corporate responsibility from citizens, consumers, investors, customers, employees, and governments. A majority now accept the science of climate change and the 2008 financial crisis has resulted in low societal trust in corporations.
As for being credible, corporate sustainability is quickly gathering steam with the publishing of real-world results. Companies are reporting massive cost savings and creating new business opportunities. Research studies are documenting the process further embedding credibility.
It resonates because people are concerned about sustainability, pollution, and conservation.
Use the Language of Your Target Market
Tamara writes, “Framing theory would suggest that more care be given to language choice and the deliberate use of language that links to larger societal values and beliefs.”
Rather than use insider language like ‘triple-bottom-line’ or ‘impact investing,’ framing theory may suggest using “People-Planet-Profit” and “responsible or values-based investments” for greater salience.
Further, using words such as “pollution, conservation, efficiency, traditional, corporate stewardship, and corporate citizenry” will help get the point across to the centrist majority in Canada and the US.
Tamara explains, “[these words] achieve the type of universality and frame amplification which research suggests would enhance frame success. These terms link the values of relatively high-hierarchal significance including responsibility, trust, and equality.”
It’s important to use the language of your target market to plant the corporate sustainability framework and make it stick.
Author Bio
Russell Richer has 15 years of experience as a B2B copywriter. A former 17-year corporate accountant, I specialize in promoting B2B products, software, SaaS, and services related to sustainable manufacturing, industrial contracting, supply chain, environmental health & safety, and business process automation. Contact Russ @ richer-communications.com.
One Response