NGO strategic communication approaches to CSR institutionalization: pathways of resistance, reform and (mutual) reinforcement

Institutional theory argues that institutional fields share a set of rules, norms, and beliefs that serve to distinguish one field from the other (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Norms and beliefs spread across a field through mimetic, coercive, and normative isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 2008). Over time, institutionalization occurs as behaviors and ideologies become habituated, accepted, serially reproduced and minimally contested across or within fields (Campbell, 2007; Colyvas and Jonsson, 2011; Hardy, 2011; Jepperson, 1991). Once a behavior or ideology, such as CSR, becomes institutionalized, it is reified and guides future actions across economic and social industries.

CSR is considered an institutionalized practice driven by stakeholder expectations, industry practices, and international frameworks (e.g. UN Sustainable Development Goals) and/or government regulations (see O’Connor, 2023). Stakeholder groups, including civil society, governments, consumers, employees, suppliers, etcetera, expect that corporations act responsibly in the conduct of their operations (Wickert and Risi, 2019). Further, “the development of trained professionals, modification of market tools, changes in public opinion, and codification into law” provide further evidence of CSR institutionalization (Wickert and Risi, 2019, p. 244).

The process of institutionalization involves different actors (Campbell, 2007; Bondy et al., 2012; Lawrence et al., 2011); however, not all voices are represented equally. Within the CSR literature, researchers have found that large multinational corporations (MNCs) use their expansive resources (Bondy et al., 2012) and strategic communication activities (O’Connor and Shumate, 2010) to institutionalize a “superior, universal form” (Jamali and Neville, 2011, p. 601) of CSR that is homogenous across economic fields and supports traditional business imperatives (Bondy et al., 2012; Jamali and Neville, 2011; O’Connor et al., 2017).

In contrast to MNCs, NGOs have fewer resources at their disposal to institutionalize CSR (Shumate and O’Connor, 2010) as well as a limited role in deciding which practices corporations adopt as part of their CSR portfolio (e.g. Nijhof et al., 2008; Trapp, 2014). Even when MNCs position themselves as part of an ecosystem, they prioritize particular stakeholder groups (e.g. standard-setting organizations) to gain institutional legitimacy (Xu and Woo, 2023). With the exception of large international environmental NGOs, MNC reporting of CSR accords a less prominent role to NGOs (Xu and Woo, 2023).

As CSR actors, NGOs engage in strategic communication to influence the practice of CSR within their institutional fields. Trends in strategic communication suggest that NGOs may, for example, leverage social media to mobilize a broad range of actors to participate in their campaigns, thereby creating more urgency and legitimacy for their claims and compelling businesses to respond (Chaudhri and Kaul, 2017; Coombs and Holladay, 2015; Davis et al., 2016).

NGOs may engage in protest actions, campaigns, demonstrations, and investigative reporting (Ählström and Sjöström, 2005). Dempsey (2011) labeled such actions as confrontational and argued that NGOs that adopt these communication strategies seek to change corporate practices “through the creation and regulation of legal mandates and sanctions” (p. 456). By not collaborating with corporations or refusing corporate donations, for example, NGOs retain the freedom “to scrutinize and criticize businesses” (Ählström and Sjöström, 2005, p. 233). Alternatively, NGOs may collaborate with corporate efforts and view such cooperation as an opportunity and incentive for change. A caveat to this approach is that corporations must be willing to engage in dialogue and collaborate with NGOs and that NGOs communication tactics may be stymied by corporate acceptance (Dempsey, 2011).

Not all institutional environments permit an either/or strategy of partnership or independence. In markets characterized by business-state collusion, indirect strategies via other stakeholders are especially relevant, as direct confrontation tactics (boycotts and protests) may undermine NGO action or threaten NGO survival (Asfaw et al., 2017). Davis and Moosmayer (2014) found that NGOs in China appealed to the purchasing power of consumers and forged connections with MNCs to gain a foothold in how CSR is defined and institutionalized. However, reliance on other actors is also complicated by the network of relationships, including the nexus of governments and businesses (e.g. Kourula et al., 2019). As evidence, Ethiopian environmental NGOs found that government actors supported economic development over environmental concerns (Asfaw et al., 2017).

In sum, the aforementioned studies highlight the numerous constraints on NGOs as actors within the CSR field. Given the contested roles of NGOs as CSR actors and the need to understand how NGO perceptions of the CSR field influence their strategic communication approaches, we examine how NGOs describe the CSR field and how these understandings shape the strategic communication approaches they employ in the CSR field.

The data for this study consists of 14 semi-structured interviews with representatives of Swiss-based international NGOs. NGOs that participated in this study represented multiple social sectors and were split between Swiss chapters of an international network and Swiss-headquartered organizations (Table 1).

Switzerland serves as an illustrative context for this study because it is home and headquarters to many international corporations as well as international NGOs. Reportedly over 750 NGOs are operating in Geneva alone (Over 750 NGOs, 2019). In addition, conversations around CSR and sustainability are simultaneously ongoing and contested. To illustrate, NGOs and civil society actors in Switzerland have been lobbying, via the Responsible Business Initiative, for more legal liability of MNCs on human rights in all business operations. After debate and despite a majority popular vote, the Swiss Parliament rejected the Initiative in November 2020 and introduced a counterproposal minus civil liabilities. However, the recent re-introduction of a “new” responsible business initiative illustrates the urgency to “prevent Switzerland from remaining an island without corporate responsibility” (Swiss Campaigners Launch, 2025, para 3).

Although empirical scholarship on CSR in Switzerland is limited, previous studies suggest that, except for large/pioneer companies, the majority of Swiss firms lag behind their EU counterparts (Hetze and Winistörfer, 2015). A Deloitte (2020) survey attests to a “missing systemic approach and clear objectives” for CSR among Swiss businesses (para 1). The survey finds that a quarter of board members are critical of CSR and believe that “their only real responsibility is to make a profit and increase the value of the company” (para 1). Together, these developments make the Swiss context worthy of consideration.

Interviewees included a cross-section of NGO professionals, from president and CEO, and head of corporate partnerships/corporate relations to communication (policy) advisor, fundraising manager and campaign manager. Interviewee tenure with their respective NGO ranged from just below one year (3 interviewees) to 8+ years. NGOs in our study spanned organizations of different sizes, scope of operation and social issues, etcetera. However, they all had ongoing projects or interests in CSR topics aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; https://sdgs.un.org/goals).

Except for one telephonic interview, all interviews were conducted face-to-face in the Swiss cities of Basel, Berne, and Zurich in March and April 2017. Interviews were conducted in English (n = 13) and German (n = 1) by one of the authors, also fluent in French and German. Interviews lasted between 40 and 62 min, were audio-recorded and were transcribed verbatim. Interview questions were guided by the study’s research questions and included topics about NGO perspectives on contemporary CSR developments in Switzerland, NGO presence, experience(s), and role(s) in the CSR field, communication strategies and specific activities that constituted engagement with business, facilitators, and attendant challenges, and constraints on NGO efforts. Indicative questions included: Can you share your understanding of CSR; What does CSR mean for you? What do you believe to be the key motivators and drivers for corporations’ interest in pursuing CSR? How do you see the role of NGOs in furthering the Swiss CSR agenda? What helps and impedes your work in this domain? When approaching or working on a CSR issue, how would you describe your approach(es) (e.g. key considerations, ways of working, communication strategies, impact, etcetera). Participants were invited to share examples of past or ongoing programs and to raise other topics not covered in the interview.

Procedurally, two researchers were involved in the design of the study, of whom one researcher conducted the interviews. A third researcher joined the project during the analysis phase. Data analysis and reporting were completed by two of the three researchers, who met virtually to discuss and fine-tune themes.

The coding process was inductive and emergent. The full set of transcripts was read and re-read by two authors with the goal of understanding and explicating the themes of interest: NGO articulations of the institutional CSR field in Switzerland and the strategic communication repertoires employed by NGOs. The descriptive, first-level codes (Tracy, 2013) were followed by a second-cycle coding that entailed identifying patterns or grouping the codes into meaningful categories (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Braun et al., 2019).

An important consideration for analysis and reporting was to present participants “in their own words” (Patton, 2002, p. 457) to “facilitate the reader’s understanding of the world under study” (p. 457). The working coding schema developed from initial transcripts was refined and modified on the basis of subsequent transcripts. Themes were subsequently grouped using Owen’s (1984) criteria of recurrence (“same thread of meaning, even though different wording indicated such a meaning”), repetition (“repetition of key words, phrases, or sentences”), and forcefulness (“vocal qualities that served to stress or subordinate words and phrases”; pp. 275–276).

The interrelated research questions sought to interrogate how Swiss NGOs describe the CSR field and the strategic communication approaches they employ. We start with an overview of how NGOs in our study perceive and describe the CSR field in Switzerland in order to contextualize the more detailed research findings that follow.

Despite the diversity of our sample, the NGO description of the CSR field was uniform. NGOs in our study were unanimous about the high levels of “interest” in and “talk” about CSR but defined the CSR field in Switzerland as driven by “business logics” in which CSR exists as “involuntary behavior in many cases” (P11) that “you cannot get around” (P14). Participants attributed this compulsory participation in CSR to reputation and risk mitigation, consumer expectations, external incentives (e.g. government contract requirements), and the market mindset that dominates the Swiss context. Interviewees indicated that this was particularly true for large, international, consumer-facing companies that are more likely to face direct public pressure than companies higher on the value chain. Some participants noted that even when corporations lacked “genuineness,” they could not be excluded by virtue of their market share and reach, as this interviewee explained, “either you can try to educate eight billion [individuals] worldwide or you can work with [leading supermarkets] to make sure they do their stuff right. That’s much easier and with a bigger impact as well.” (P7).

Pointing to the systemic nexus between power and profit, one opined that “people are not bad, but they play a role in this system” (P10); another echoed this view, “we are in a country that is very economic-oriented. So, people will always ask, ‘Well, what’s the bottom line of it, how can I profit?’” (P5). Participants elaborated on the market mindset by noting that, from their perspective, corporations engaged in CSR not because they were overly altruistic or morally bound but driven by business benefits, “and if they [business] have generated profit, they may think about further engagement” (P2). Relatedly, participants noted that the profit-first paradigm created a short-term perspective that allowed companies to skirt social issues that they did not want to deal with. “‘We don’t have time, we’re not interested’ […] I have called companies and some of them have responded: ‘Please come back to us in three years’” recounted one (P6).

Finally, participants highlighted the disconnect between “what they say and what they actually do” (P8) as a feature of a market-driven CSR field that causes businesses to “block every type of regulation” (P9) and make “high flying promises at Davos” only to make “different decisions in crunch time” (P8). Participants cited the pushback to the Responsible Business Initiative championed by civil society as illustrative of a strong business lobby.

In sum, across the diversity of NGOs in our study, we find a striking uniformity in how the CSR field is described that confirms the primacy of business as the driver for CSR (Bondy et al., 2012; Jamali and Neville, 2011; O’Connor et al., 2017). Notably, these descriptions echo the existing, albeit small, body of research on CSR in Switzerland (e.g. Deloitte, 2020; Hetze and Winistörfer, 2015; Lorenz et al., 2016).

Against the backdrop of a business- or corporate-first orientation, our results indicate that NGOs operating in Switzerland employ three main strategic communication approaches: resistance (by exposing irresponsibility/irresponsible behavior); reform (working in coalitions to shape policy and structural change favorable to advancing CSR); and (mutual) reinforcement (via intra-organizational mechanisms geared toward a more strategic and embedded CSR approach). We treat these as a constellation or repertoire of practice that illustrates the intersections of the macro (descriptions of the CSR field) and the micro (individual NGO strategies). Viewing NGO communication as a constellation of practice extends beyond the binaries of criticism and collaboration and highlights the multi-level processes at play. We unpack each approach in the subsequent paragraphs.

By bringing attention to corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR) or, broadly, the failure of CSR towards the expectations of society (see Riera and Iborra, 2017), NGOs employ a strategic orientation of resistance focused on revealing corporate wrongdoings through media (including social media) campaigns, investigative (research) reports, and direct confrontation in order to pressurize businesses to change for the better. Guided by a fundamental criticism of unbridled corporate power that goes “far beyond the laws and the political power of nation states” (P10), NGO resistance strategies are simultaneously grounded in a distrust of corporations and a skepticism of the genuineness of CSR. Designating Switzerland as “one of the centers of world imperialism,” P10 outlined their NGO mission “to be the voice of partner movements in the Global South.” To do so, the NGO employed protests at shareholder assemblies “to make an issue of those problems here in Switzerland” (P10).

Others relayed their approach of “exposing bad practices” (P14) and building awareness of issues via research reports and other forms of investigations (P11) with a goal to force companies to change. P11 shared an example of a public petition made to the CEO of a global Swiss financial firm questioning its keystone financing deals, “it’s [petition] just no good news for a bank with an image like [firm].” Even when these efforts do not lead to immediate change, they may make businesses more “nervous” and carefully consider future decisions. Aiming for (long-term) business change, this NGO typically started with “making the problem known to the company itself” and evaluated further action based on response: “if a company takes a question like that up in an open and serious way and if not, you may need to increase the heat a bit. Basically, the more cooperative, the less heat” (P11).

Another reiterated that if the company in question tried to ignore them or did not show interest, they “develop the campaign, make a story, and show what the company is doing wrong” (P14), even when it means antagonizing the company. To illustrate, the participant recounted how the media described their NGO as “Bankenschreck” (“banks fright”) in response to their campaign against a large financial firm.

Notably, in employing a strategic communication approach of resistance, NGOs were not concerned about fitting into the institutionalized field of CSR, opining that “we are not the kind of organization that companies like most” (P10). In fact, they expressed disdain at the prospect of NGOs being used as “fig leaves to greenwash company reputations” (P14).

A second strategic communication approach employed by NGOs in our study aimed at generating systemic and structural change at a policy and/or regulatory level premised on the assertion that policy change has the biggest impact, “if governments adjust policies to change rules of the game in a way that companies have to adjust their business case, that’s the biggest impact” (P8). The discomfort with the voluntary nature of CSR underpinned the motivation of NGOs to advocate a regulatory approach: “CSR in itself doesn’t work. Even if you take CSR seriously, as a company you still have other goals first, such as profit or quality” (P4). A reform-driven strategic orientation was enacted via efforts at influencing macro structures (e.g. laws and regulations) through lobbying and multistakeholder coalitions.

A participant indicated that while CSR was “pushing business to higher standards”, it was unlikely that, left to their own voluntary devices, businesses would support systemic change (P8). Therefore, regulatory mechanisms were needed to drive or at least accompany corporate efforts to “change their systems” (P12) because “companies themselves don’t want more regulation” (P9). One explained: “imagine that [fast fashion brand] has one nice project in a factory in Pakistan, well that’s really important for the people there for sure, but the rest of the brand’s supply chain stays the same” (P4). Hence, the key motivator for this group was to challenge the limited scope of CSR as voluntary (“if you want to” P4) and supplant it with “legislation where they [business] have to do it” (P4). Strategic communication tactics relied on traditional lobbying, advocacy, and participation in collective communication activities aimed at the government rather than a particular business.

Forgoing direct corporate challenges in favor of government and multi-stakeholder relations was viewed as a way to get more organizations beyond the few large MNCs active in CSR to ultimately reform the system. Even so, NGOs acknowledged that attempting to influence policy came with its own challenges (“policymaking is a black box”; P8) and multi-stakeholder efforts could be derailed by powerful actors and their agendas.

Some NGOs, in fact, diversified their strategic approach depending on the social issue or company in question. This tactic allowed them to decide which strategic communication option was most likely to result in the change desired. One interviewee outlined their multi-pronged approach:

Another quipped that working in coalitions allowed them to involve businesses in a way that transcended the extremes of NGOs who “only criticize” business or only “work with business” (P8).

Finally, we identified a strategic communication approach aimed at the (mutual) reinforcement of CSR in ways that are not just “strategic” (P2) but vital for demonstrating business “responsibility towards the nature and the society they work within” (P5). Here, NGOs reported employing intra-organizational communication tactics centered on dialogue that eventually result in stronger support for CSR policy and conduct.

NGOs reported sharing expertise and knowledge to further expand and embed CSR in organizations, for example, an interviewee explained: “Big corporations have often their own ways of performing CSR and even their own foundations for that but you don’t get the feeling that everyone is standing behind it, especially the employees” (P6). Therefore, moving corporations beyond “ad hoc Christmas action to a more sustained CSR effort […] awaken the social spirit and broaden the horizons” (P13) underpinned the reinforcement strategic communication tactic.

Others positioned themselves as a source of information and expertise to support business efforts and increase CSR engagement. NGOs were willing to use their own networks and brand to help corporations amplify their CSR efforts. An NGO explained how they supported a Switzerland-based global healthcare firm in its efforts to help people suffering from “non-communicable diseases, heart attack, diabetes, lung disease and so on” using their extensive volunteer and community network (P2).

With one exception, NGOs did not see themselves as having a part in formulating CSR strategy but as providing the missing pieces in CSR implementation and/or viewing these as “a step to more concrete action” (P12). One explained, “Companies are the ones setting the agenda and picking the goals they want to achieve with their CSR strategy, while they are looking for a perfect partner which may support them in realizing those projects or targets” (P2; italics original). Only P7 noted it was in a “special position” relative to other NGOs to influence corporate (CSR) strategy: “Being a global player, we do bring a certain value and we can also maybe push more than others” (P7).

Notably, NGOs too benefitted from these strategic efforts by gaining access to (corporate) funds, knowledge, training, corporate volunteers “as multipliers … [and] direct contact with the higher management” (P13). A participant described the positive spiral of benefit emanating from their collaboration in terms of “brand awareness,” marketing support, and brand recognition that ultimately helps to “attract private donors” (P12). This reciprocal benefit was framed in dual terms, as an NGO imperative to stop seeing the private sector as a “cash cow” (P2; P8) and as indicative of a movement (among some NGOs) away from “naming and shaming” toward “knowing and showing and having more fact-based discussion” (P1).

That said, NGOs were cognizant of the criticisms accompanying their willingness to work with business, exemplified thus, “we are facing criticism and I mean we’re trying our best to mitigate that but there will always be some levels of disappeal of people that think that we should not work with corporates” (P7). In addition to doing due diligence and adopting other transparency mechanisms (P3; P6; P1; P2) necessary to demonstrate that collaborations are “not a contract that buys our soul” (P7), NGOs noted that working with business did not preclude the possibility of challenging the corporation; if anything, it provided a relational basis from which to have difficult conversations, “Hey, we heard of this and that issue, what’s your statement about it?’” (P2).

This exploratory study gives primacy to the NGO perspective, thereby extending the conversation beyond why and how businesses seek to institutionalize the CSR field (Brammer et al., 2012; Campbell, 2007) to consider how these institutionalized definitions are understood and experienced by NGOs. Further, given the known constraints on NGOs as CSR actors within the CSR field as well as the ability of corporations to be authoritative actors in defining the CSR field, our goal was to examine NGO strategic communication practices in situ. These efforts are aligned with calls to deepen understandings of how the business and NGO sectors relate to each other, broadly speaking, and how this “relationships plays out in practice in particular countries” (Harris, 2012, p. 897).

While we acknowledge that corporations differ in how, where and when they engage in CSR (O’Connor et al., 2021), the results of this study indicate that NGO practitioners are univocal in their belief that CSR is a “corporate first” activity. Our participants were keenly aware of the primacy given to corporate logics and, even when critical, seemed to accept the dominance of market-driven approaches to CSR. These findings support previous research (e.g. Bondy et al., 2012; Jamali and Neville, 2011; O’Connor et al., 2017) that the form of institutionalized CSR supports traditional business imperatives even in the Swiss context (Deloitte, 2020; Hetze and Winistörfer, 2015; Lorenz et al., 2016) and aligns with a recent study urging the “acute need for action” by Swiss companies (cf. Brechlin, 2024). The similarities in these findings suggest that some practices, such as the primacy of “voluntary and conscious positioning” together with “demands from stakeholders and preparation for obligations from public authorities or investors” as the strategic drivers for sustainability reporting (Brechlin, 2024), may indeed be institutionalized beyond the Swiss context.

Considering the uniform terms in which Swiss-based NGOs defined the CSR field, it becomes even more compelling to understand whether and how these perceptions shape strategic options in ways that are not monopolized by business interests. Our findings indicate that the macro- and micro-CSR experiences are entwined across the different (resistance, reform, reinforcement) strategic communication approaches that Swiss NGOs employ. We suggest viewing these strategic communication approaches as a constellation or repertoire of practice employed by NGOs to—in varying degrees—shift the status quo of a market-first CSR field. In theory, we contend that NGOs may adopt any of these three strategic approaches. Within our own sample, we find evidence of NGOs working with differentiated approaches that do not neatly fit into a particular category. For instance, NGOs working with a dominant resistance approach may offer corporations a chance to address problems before launching a full campaign; NGOs employing a dominant reform strategy focused on regulatory and policy changes may still consider including corporations in multistakeholder forums; and finally, NGOs working with a dominant reinforcement strategy may challenge their corporate partner to keep their CSR commitments and/or to safeguard the NGO’s reputation.

This exploratory study found that NGOs view their role as more expansive than the traditional binary of NGOs as critics or collaborators of business in a manner theoretically consistent with “a lens of tension and contradiction” (Sanders, 2012, p. 179). Evidence suggests that NGOs may indeed simultaneously engage in collaboration and confrontation strategic communication approaches (e.g. van Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2010) in a mutually reinforcing way to push the business toward CSR (p. 611). As such, our study using the Swiss context builds on early NGO role theorizing (e.g. Ählström and Sjöström, 2005) while adding to the ongoing scholarly conversations about NGOs as CSR actors.

In an important departure from early theorizing (e.g. Arenas et al., 2009), NGOs in our study show astute understanding of the “stereotypes they generate” especially in relation to their “ambivalent roles” as CSR actors (Arenas et al., 2009, p. 175). In our study too, there were some emphatic calls for a separation of roles (“a watchdog cannot be a consultant at the same time; ” P14) and/or the need to implement the capabilities and structures that permitted collaborative relationships without getting “corrupted” (P4). Equally, there was a recognition that the NGO space is tenuous; as one of our participants opined, “it’s always good to have principles, but when it is about survival, it’s a bit more difficult” (P5).

Illustrating the tensions in practice, a strategic communication approach of resistance favored for the potential to be independent and to criticize or challenge business is, arguably, less popular with business organizations interested in maintaining the status quo. Too, the focus on exposing business and the criticism of NGOs who are gullible to corporate dominance makes a resistance approach challenging for other potential NGO partners in the CSR field. By comparison, a strategic communication approach of reform operates on the middle ground, bypassing business to influence policy-making as a mechanism for structural change in the CSR field; however, such an approach also risks being stymied by the dominant coalition in multistakeholder initiatives and/or the nexus of business and government opposed to binding regulation and policy. Finally, the strategy of (mutual) reinforcement that relies more heavily on intra-organizational communication approaches is dependent on internal champions and/or management support and draws criticism of allegedly “sleeping with the enemy” (Burchell and Cook, 2013). Indeed, the tensions accompanying the constellation of practice (resistance, reform, and mutual reinforcement) prompted NGOs in our study to explicitly justify their practices. As such, CSR appears to be “the space where there is mutual need with different and perhaps even opposing goals” (Parker, 2003, p. 93).

Pragmatically, our study builds on extant arguments about the roles of NGOs as core institutional actors in influencing CSR. For businesses, the insight into the range of NGO strategic communication approaches, beyond the extremes of collaboration and confrontation, is helpful in understanding, anticipating, and/or engaging with NGOs on CSR issues. Additionally, these may help businesses appreciate how contextual and institutional dynamics shape NGO approaches to CSR institutionalization.

This exploratory study extends the scholarly conversation about NGO perspectives on CSR institutionalization and strategic communication. Our approach, however, is not without limitations that may inform future research. To begin, the Swiss context may not reflect the multitude of CSR fields. Scholars have argued that CSR is best understood in situ (e.g. Arenas et al., 2009; Brammer et al., 2012; Doh and Guay, 2006; O’Connor, 2023) and we concur. Comparative studies would illuminate how different institutional fields influence the practices and experiences of NGOs as CSR actors, including factors that hinder and facilitate NGO ability to influence CSR institutionalization.

Relatedly, we acknowledge that interviews were conducted in 2017. Given changes in the NGO system, including those due to COVID and global power challenges (e.g. wars, leadership transitions), these findings should be revisited and expanded in future research. Notably, however, all of the NGOs in this study remain in operation. Further, we are reluctant to assume that research done prior to 2020 has no relevance to current practice. We could find no articles that contradict these findings. Instead, there is evidence to suggest that new EU regulations (e.g. the 2023 Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive or CSRD) and the re-introduction of a “new” responsible business initiative in January 2025 (Swiss Campaigners Launch, 2025) will be consequential for CSR and sustainability action in Switzerland. A longitudinal and/or comparative analysis could expand our knowledge and understanding of these shifts.

Finally, our study may be critiqued for not adequately considering NGO demographics (e.g. size, leadership, social issue) in ascertaining preference for a particular strategic communication approach. We acknowledge this limitation but attempt to not see NGOs, broadly conceived, as “just the physical structures or material resources” (Koschmann et al., 2015, p. 214). Our effort was to not reify NGOs into static typologies of critics and collaborators but to situate their workings in the complexities of their lived experiences. Given this goal, the static demographics, while a strong starting point to establish the diversity of our sample, do not interrogate how NGOs use communication to constitute their CSR work.

Future research could also validate and/or identify other strategic communication approaches and combinations within what we call a constellation or repertoire of practice. Under what conditions and in what (additional) ways do NGOs shift within the constellation of practice? What, if any, are the boundary conditions for each approach? The impact(s) of particular approaches on the CSR field and/or on NGO-business relationships is a question worthy of investigation. In other words, how do the three approaches work to propel the introduction or revision of corporate policies and practices (Athanasopoulou and Selsky, 2015, p. 327)? Finally, future research that examines whether and how NGO strategic communication evolves over time is needed (Lewis, 2021). This would provide an understanding of how environmental disturbances alter the CSR field and how NGOs navigate the institutional complexity in their roles as CSR actors.

In conclusion, our study extends existing research on the engagement of NGOs in CSR. Accounting for contemporary developments in the NGO space, we focus on NGO interpretation of the CSR field and the strategic communication approaches NGOs employ in influencing CSR institutionalization. Using the Swiss context as an illustrative case, we advance a non-binary understanding of NGO approaches as a constellation of practice in situ.

The authors thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback.