In an era when corporate transparency is crucial, corporate social responsibility (CSR) plays a key role in shaping the reputation of companies globally. But is there a time frame within which companies consciously shape the communication of their commitment? And how much do the cultural characteristics of each country matter in shaping this model?

To answer this question, the recent study, “Being Reassuring About the Past While Promising a Better Future: How Companies Frame Temporal Focus in Social Responsibility Reporting,” published in Business and Society, took an in-depth look at how companies temporally frame their CSR activities in reports to stakeholders. 

Based on an analysis of over 2,700 CSR reports from 245 companies in eight developing countries, including Brazil, China and India, for the period 2000-2018, the research shows a well-defined trend: companies predominantly use past and present tenses of verbs to describe philanthropic and community support activities, where they can exercise direct control. Conversely, they typically use the future tense when dealing with more complex and global issues, such as human rights and child labor, which require international collaboration and joint efforts.

In fact, the study distinguishes between two types of issues:

• “Micro-social” issues: donations, local projects that the company runs itself
• “Meta-social” issues: global issues such as child labor or slavery, which require international collaborations.

For example, one Brazilian company reported increasing contributions to educational initiatives by 68 percent over the previous year-a clear reference to the past to reassure stakeholders. Speaking instead of human rights, the same company made promises related to future improvements.

Another key aspect that emerged is the influence of a country’s typical level of “uncertainty aversion,” or how uncomfortable a company is with ambiguity. In countries such as Russia and Mexico, where this trait is pronounced, companies use more concrete and detailed language, with precise deadlines. In contrast, in countries like China, with low uncertainty aversion, more vague and aspirational language is preferred.

From these aspects, it was possible to identify four main modes of communication:

1. Reassuring: concrete details about achievements already made
2. Celebrative: emphasis on achievements in a more abstract way
3. Pragmatic: future goals but with specific deadlines
4. Imaginative: vague language about possible future improvements

The study thus suggests that companies strategically use time references to influence stakeholder perceptions. References to the past reassure present engagement, while the future promises improvement on more complex issues.

This research offers valuable insights for improving transparency and effectiveness of corporate communication on social responsibility, particularly on highly complex issues. What also becomes clear is how the cultural context significantly influences corporate communication choices in this area.