Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders – the role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication

Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders – the role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication

ABSTRACT

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.

Key words: Strategic ambiguity; CSR communication; Sustainability; Stakeholder

management; Sustainability program brand

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 (Vurro et al., 2009;

Savage et al., 2010; Sakarya et al., 2012; Crane et al., 2014). The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) also emphasizes this value chain approach

(www.unep.org): “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 and Waddock, 2002; Gregory, 2007; Du et al., 2010).

So while communication is an essential building block to facilitate collaboration on sustainability initiatives, a substantial part of the extant Sustainability/CSR

communication literature takes a limited approach and primarily focuses on consumers as the target audience with the purpose of creating trust and brand loyalty (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Brunk, 2010; Öberseder et al., 2013; Blombäck and Scandelius, 2013; Golob et al., 2013), so as to safeguard competitiveness in the marketplace (Dowling, 2004; Gurau, 2013). This notion on CSR communication doesn’t require much of an active response from stakeholders, other than purchasing the products or services on offer, or refraining from criticizing the corporation.

1 In line with a number of prominent scholars (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Moon, 2007;

Sotorrio et al., 2008; Perez-Batres et al., 2010; Lourenco et al., 2012) we make the

assumption that the concepts of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) and sustainability,

while not identical, can be used interchangeably.

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 et al., 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 (Vargo and Lusch, 2004 and 2008; Lusch and Vargo, 2014). It should here be clarified that co-creation can be viewed as collaboration with higher involvement and creativity, leading to shared value (Ind et al., 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 et al., 2009). Merz et al. (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; Vurro et al., 2009; Savage et al., 2010;

Sakarya et al., 2012).

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 et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2007; Kim et al.,

2013). In addition, even within a specific stakeholder group there could be diversity (Neville

and Menguc, 2006; Gyrd-Jones and Kornum, 2013; Waligo et al., 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 (Du et al., 2010; Corus and Ozanne, 2012). 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 and 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 et al. (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. In 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 and Davenport, 2002).

Eisenberg’s work (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 and Davenport, 2007), or seeking engagement from internal stakeholders to create value for the organization itself (Leitch and Davenport, 2002), or from a power

relationship standpoint exploring the outcomes and risks of deploying strategic ambiguity in a

public funding context (Davenport and 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 and 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 has impacts on not only the strategic ambiguity literature, but also contributes to the literature strands of CSR communication, stakeholder management and the 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, the 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), 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 and Salmi, 2011). Their case study, with ecological issues in the Baltic Sea as the focus, suggests that (Ritvala and 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 (Leitch and Davenport, 2002; Davenport and Leitch, 2005; Miller et al., 2000; Contractor and Ehrlich, 1993; Denis et al., 2011), in finding consensus on controversial topics in policy documents (Tracy and Ashcraft, 2001; Leitch and Davenport, 2007) and to allow flexibility in crisis communication (Ulmer and 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 and 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.

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 and Sellnow 2000) or to avoid responsibility (Paul and Strbiak 1997).

Also Driessen et al. (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 (Jarzabkowski et al., 2010; Denis et al., 2011; Davenport and Leitch, 2005), or active resistance through unconstructive

interpretations (Davenport and 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 and 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 and 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 (Ullmer and 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.

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 and Witten, 1987; Miller et al., 2000), or in an organization’s mission statement (Contractor and Ehrlich, 1993), as in a case study from the public sector in New Zealand where an organization deployed an ‘investment metaphor’

to stimulate a dialogue with its stakeholders (Leitch and 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 and 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. Method

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 on-going interplay between empirical data, theory building and literature (Van Maanen et al., 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 (Pullman et al., 2009; Lehtinen, 2012). 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 and 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, a governmental organization 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.

Table 1. Case companies: Sampled food/drink brand owners and retailers

INSERT TABLE 1 (note to reviewer: please see tables and figures at the end of the paper) Table 2. Case companies: Sampled stakeholders

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

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 and Huberman, 1994).

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 and Huberman, 1994). In addition, the study achieved triangulation through four sources of data (Yin 2009): (1) semi-structured interviews, lasting an average of 1 hour;

(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.

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

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 (Figure 1), supported by explanations and evidence (Table 3). The framework is explained and discussed in detail below.

Figure 1. Strategic ambiguity as a vehicle to overcome CSR communication challenges INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

Table 3. Explanation and evidence to the framework in figure 1 INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

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, both in terms of 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 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 it is not known what a sensible target is, specific communication is not possible and ambiguous wordings can add value.

As can be seen in Figure 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. 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).

In 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 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 firstly 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 Figure 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 Figure 2, illustrating the connection between Figure 1 and 2, whereby Figure 2 is a detailed component of Figure 1.

.

4.2 Format of strategic ambiguity

The interviews reveal that strategic ambiguity is applied at two tiers, as depicted in Figure 2, where communication to five stakeholder groups (consumers, shareholders, NGOs, suppliers, employees) is portrayed.

Figure 2. The format of strategic ambiguity to diverse stakeholders

INSER FIGURE 2 HERE

4.2.1 Strategic ambiguity in communication targeted across stakeholder groups Firstly, 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 Starbucks ‘Shared Planet’, ‘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 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.”

(http://www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Performance-with-Purpose)

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.”

(http://corporate.marksandspencer.com/plan-a/about-plan-a)

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 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.

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 translate 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 Figure 2. A sustainability program brand assists the communication on both tiers, offering an element of consistency in the communication as well as flexibility, simplification, inclusion, etc. thereby facilitating consensus and collaboration.

5. Discussion and conclusion

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 Figure 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 (Eisenberg, 1984; Eisenberg and Witten, 1987; Leitch and Davenport, 2002 and 2007; Davenport and Leitch, 2005; Dickinson-Delaporte et al., 2010), 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 on-going 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 focal firm, as a two-way balanced dialogue benefits not only the firm but also its stakeholders through the development of capabilities to transform and progress (Morsing and Schultz, 2006; Bowen et al., 2010; Herremans et al., 2015). This could

potentially prevent the pitfalls of indecisions and passivity (Jarzabkowski et al., 2010; Denis et al., 2011; Davenport and Leitch, 2005).

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 and 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, when

perhaps a more suitable goal has evolved, or in case the goal was not achieved, deny certain

interpretation of the seemingly ‘outdated’ goal.

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 dialogue 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 due to its equivocal nature allows for multiple interpretations, 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 Figure 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 and Mulhern, 2004; Kitchen and 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 on-going process; (2) that is dialogic; (3) dependent on cross-functional 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 while the IMC

literature, despite promoting the inclusion of all stakeholders, still focuses empirical research primarily on value creation for the firm and its customers. In 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 et al., 2007; Fukukawa et al., 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 (Fukukawa et al., 2007;

Balmer et al., 2011). 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 and Schultz, 2009).

Equally, a sustainability program brand appears to sit well within the emerging service- dominant marketing logic with its wider stakeholder considerations (Vargo and Lusch, 2004 and 2008; Lusch and Vargo, 2014). Duncan and Moriarty (2006) suggest that IMC and service-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 and de Chernatony, 2001; Vargo and 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. As such “brand value is co-created by community-based negotiations

and symbolic interpretation of brand-related information, as well as personal narratives

based on personal or impersonal experiences with the brands.” (Muniz et al., 2001, p. 338)

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 and 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 (Vargo and Lusch, 2004 and 2008; Lusch and Vargo, 2014). 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 (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Eccles and Serafeim, 2013).

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 (Podnar, 2008; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Brunk, 2010; Öberseder et al., 2013; Blombäck and Scandelius, 2013). It further adds to the CSR communication literature by seeking methods for communication to diverse stakeholders in order to not only disseminate information but also to stimulate active collaboration and co-creation (Podnar, 2008; Du et al., 2010; Golob et al., 2013).

The collaboration aspect is closely related to the stakeholder management literature, where numerous scholars (Freeman, 1984; Porter and Kramer, 2006; Savage et al., 2010;

Minoja, 2012; Sakarya et al., 2012; Corus and Ozanne, 2012; Eccles and Serafeim, 2013;

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-to-use 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 re- emphasize 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 and 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 (Rowley, 1997; Roloff, 2007).

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 and 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 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 (Kitchen and

Schultz, 2009; Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Balmer et al., 2007, Balmer et al., 2011; Fukukawa

et al., 2007), 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 and Schultz, 2009). In addition, it would be beneficial to further explore how a

sustainability program brand can contribute to the literature in service-dominant marketing