A theory of corporate responsibility to race (CRR): communication and racial justice in public relations

This article introduces the theory of the corporate responsibility to race (CRR). It holds that corporations should communicate in ways that advocate for racial justice, attempt to improve race relations, and support achieving a more equitable and harmonious society. Corporations have this responsibility to race because they have historically perpetuated and profited from racial oppression, making corporations contributors to, and benefactors of, racial injustice. However, recently corporations have been using their platforms to speak against racial injustice in an effort to improve race relations. CRR theory provides a new way to readily identify, understand, contextualize, theorize and analyze corporate communication about race. Although CRR emerges from a Unites States perspective, and as a public relations concept, it has global applications in any place where racial difference leads to oppression, and it has analytical value in any field where organizational resources can be leveraged to fight oppression.

Keywords: Corporate responsibility to race; critical race theory; corporate social responsibility; corporate social advocacy; CEO activism; race in the marketplace

Introduction

This article introduces the theory of the corporate responsibility to race (CRR). The theory holds that corporations should communicate in ways that advocate for racial justice, attempt to improve race relations, and support achieving a more equitable and harmonious society.

I argue that corporations have this responsibility to race because they historically have perpetuated and profited from racial oppression, making them contributors to, and beneficiaries of, racial injustice. However, since at least 2015, there has been a growing trend of corporations using public relations strategies and tactics to speak against racial injustice (Logan, [93]). These forms of corporate communication[1] seem qualitatively different from the self-interested ways that corporations typically communicate about matters of race, which is through discourses such as crisis, multicultural, and diversity and inclusion communications that often aim to protect reputations, expand market opportunities, augment labor resources, and ultimately enrich the corporate bottom line (Edwards, [45], [48]).

Unlike corporate-centric approaches to communications about race, the communication trend that is the focus of this research centers on the needs of society. CRR, therefore, directs attention to how corporations acknowledge racial wrongs in society and advocate for racial justice to improve race relations because doing so is the right thing to do, not because it is the profitable thing to do. Emanating from empirical observations about public relations activities that address the subject of race in America, CRR theory contributes to theory building in public relations by providing a new theoretical perspective that enables us to more readily identify, understand, contextualize, and analyze corporate communications that address race relations.

CRR is an emic, inductive theory that may have etic, deductive applications. As a normative theoretical framework, it could, and perhaps should, guide the behavior of corporations and similar organizations on matters of race and social justice. CRR also has epistemological, ontological, and heuristic value. Epistemologically, CRR offers a new way to conceptualize knowledge in public relations that places race at the center of inquiry. Ontologically, it invites new ways to theorize how human beings and organizations experience the world within the context of powerful corporations advocating for racial justice. As an innovative avenue to explore the relatively new phenomenon of corporations communicating to improve race relations, CRR provides heuristic value through its potential to generate new ideas and questions in public relations research. In addition to its theoretical contributions, CRR also offers several communication principles that could be used to guide the creation of corporate communications about matters of race and justice.

This article begins by situating the theoretical foundation of CRR at the nexus of public relations and critical race theory (CRT). Next, the three main concepts that constitute the CRR theory are presented: the corporation, race, and corporate social responsibility. Then, the CRR theory is explicated (cf. Chaffee, [21]), including its premises, principles, and potential applications. Although CRR emerges from a U.S. perspective and as a public relations theory, it has global applications in any place where racial differences can lead (or have led) to discrimination, and it has analytic value in any field where organizational resources can be leveraged to fight oppression (i.e., everywhere).

Theoretical foundations

Edwards ([44]) wrote, "Race is one of the most powerful, ideological, instrumental factors in how identity, power, and privilege are constructed" (p. 240), pointing out that race remains an undertheorized area of public relations research. Race is a notoriously nebulous subject that is difficult to define (Omi & Winant, [108]). Commonplace understandings of race situate it as a biological fact, based on phenotypes such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features (Omi & Winant, [108]). Despite arguments advocating for a colorblind, post-racial society, race remains a means by which many people "see" and "read" those with whom they come in contact (Omi & Winant, [108]). "However," Allen ([3]) argued, "scholars from many disciplines conceptualize race as an artificial construct that varies according to social, cultural, political, legal, economic, and historical factors within a society" (pp. 66–67). This is the social constructionist view of race.

To say that race is socially constructed is to argue that it varies according to time and place. Concepts and ideologies of race have shifted over historical time and differ according to the sociohistorical conditions in which race is embedded. (Omi & Winant, [108], p. 13)

This helps to explain why Irish people, Jews, and others with "white" skin have not always been considered "white" in the United States (Ignatiev, [75]; Omi & Winant, [108]; Roediger, [125]) and also why race has different meanings and implications in different parts of the world. Although race has been operationalized differently around the world, for the most part, "[r]ace and racism in the United States have been shaped by a centuries-long conflict between white domination and resistance by people of color" (Omi & Winant, [108], p. 3).

The legacy of race conceptualized as a biological fact and as a social construction is evidenced in definitions such as this one from Johnson, Thomas, Harrison, and Grier ([79]), who define race "as a mode of sociopolitical classification that creates enduring hierarchies based on physical appearance, cultural practices, and ancestry" (p. 7). No matter how race is defined, it is always connected to issues of power and ideology. Race also has material implications for the human experience (Allen, [3]; Johnson et al., [79]; Omi & Winant, [108]), and communication has the potential to play "both oppressive and liberatory roles in the quest for racial equality and harmony" (Allen, [3], p. 90). Some of the most theoretically invigorating work in public relations has emerged through scholarly engagement with critical race theory (CRT).

CRT emerged in the 1970s from legal scholars committed to exposing and challenging the ways in which "race and racial power are constructed and represented in American legal culture and, more generally, in American society as a whole" (Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, [32], p. xiii). CRT positions scholars to recognize racism, examine the conditions that contribute to it, and explain reasons why racism continues to persist today. Thus, CRT implicates the past in the present by acknowledging the significance of history as it reveals how historical legacies endure and contribute to contemporary forms of oppression and domination. While recognizing that multiple forms of overlapping oppression result from the intersections of race, class, gender, and other factors (Crenshaw, [31]), CRT focuses on race as a central factor in shaping social relations (Crenshaw et al., [32]; Delgado & Stefancic, [35]). CRT maintains that racism is embedded throughout U.S. society and is empowered by the ubiquity and invisibility of whiteness, which it aims to locate and analyze.

According to Harris ([64]), "[w]hiteness is an aspect of racial identity surely, but it is much more; it remains a concept based on relations of power, a social construct predicated on white dominance and black subordination" (p. 287). For example, during chattel slavery, whiteness symbolized freedom, the right to own property, and access to privileges that transformed whiteness into a valuable form of property for those able to fit within that racial categorization (Harris, [64]). Whiteness is also witnessed in immigration law (Gee, [59]). Delgado and Stefancic ([35]) have noted that "as many ordinary citizens did, judges defined the white race in opposition to blackness or some other form of otherness ... that also marked a boundary between privilege and its opposite" (p. 85). Thus,

The social ontology of whiteness is a species of racism. Whether racism is in the heart or necessarily consisting of a set of racist beliefs, whiteness continues to be a living, breathing historical construction, a social ontological performance that has profound, pervasive, and systemic oppressive consequences for nonwhite people. (Yancy, [149], p. 14)

In addition to highlighting the insidious aspects of racism endemic to whiteness, CRT also provides a lens to unmasking whiteness as a form of everyday privilege that becomes normalized, as "just the way things are" (cf. McIntosh, [98]).

CRT challenges dominant ideologies that contribute to racism, such as alleged notions of black intellectual inferiority, the Asian model minority, and Hispanic criminality. In opposition, CRT situates the voices of racial minorities and other marginalized groups as sources of epistemological value (Delgado & Stefancic, [35]; Gee, [59]; Solorzano & Yosso, [130]). Put another way, "CRT challenges not only the premises and practices that dispense power throughout society but also those that disempower people of color" (Valdes, Culp, & Harris, [140], p. 4). Thus, CRT provides enlightening context for the experiences of people who suffer from racialized discrimination and oppression (Matsuda, [97]). As a liberatory, transformative, and emancipatory theory, CRT aims to achieve racial justice (DeCuir-Gunby, Chapman, & Schutz, [34]), which can be defined as:

the systematic fair treatment of people of all races, resulting in equitable opportunities and outcomes for all. Racial justice—or racial equity—goes beyond "anti-racism." It is not just the absence of discrimination and inequities, but also the presence of deliberate systems and supports to achieve and sustain racial equity through proactive and preventative measures. (National Education Association, [103])

Although CRT has its roots in legal studies, it is a transdisciplinary approach that invites multiple interpretations and understandings of how race operates. Thus, "CRT stresses the importance of connecting with other disciplines to address racism because of its complexity and intricateness" (DeCuir-Gunby et al., [34], p. 6).

Since its emergence in legal studies, CRT has been taken up by numerous disciplines, such as education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, [86]), rhetoric (Martinez, [96]; Olmsted, [107]), sociology (Aguirre, [1]), business (Parker & Grimes, [113]), marketing (Poole et al., [119]), and public relations. In a foundational article that helped introduce CRT to the public relations field, Pompper ([116]) moved the discipline beyond organization-centric, instrumental treatments of race that situated race as a problem to be solved or as a market to be exploited for financial gain. Her article evaluated the attention directed toward difference in the field and advanced theory-building about race in public relations. Arguing that "whiteness and ethnocentrism permeate public relations research," Pompper ([116]) asserted that "it is time for CRT in public relations, given the nearly three decades of myopia" (p.155).

After Pompper ([116]), other public relations scholars turned to CRT to theorize race in public relations (e.g., Edwards, [44], [46], [47]; Logan, [90], [92]; Waymer & Heath, [146]). Edwards ([46]) asked several important questions that helped to inspire the emergence of CRR in my own theorizing, including, "How can PR counter racism and racialization?" (p. 72). Waymer and Heath ([146]) also advanced thought-provoking questions, including, "What would the discipline of public relations look like if race was placed at the center of research inquiry, design, and execution?" (p. 289).

CRT-inspired research in public relations elevates the subject of race in the discipline and transcends treating race like an object to be managed for organizational gain. The transformative potential of public relations, emboldened by CRT's critique of society's institutions – including the corporation – constitutes the philosophical spirit of the corporate responsibility to race theory, which is based on three core concepts: the corporation, race, and corporate social responsibility, which I explicate in the following sections. These explications are informed by a CRT approach that emphasizes historical context, challenges dominant ideologies of race, and unites several lines of inquiry within a transdisciplinary endeavor that culminates in a new theory of race in public relations.

The corporation

The corporation, commonly understood as a business organization designed to generate profit (Tedlow, [137]), has been described in many ways (Allen, [4]; Blair, [10]; Bowman, [12]; Butler, [16]; Millon, [100]). An often-studied conceptualization of the corporation is that of the "person" (Aljalian, [2]; Dewey, [37]; Gindis, [60]; Mark, [95]; Winkler, [148]). While much of the work on corporate personhood has appeared in legal scholarship, communication scholars also have addressed the subject. Within the context of organizational rhetoric, Cheney and McMillan ([25]) explored the rise of corporate persons, the increasing prominence of their communication, and the implications of corporate rhetors for society. Cheney ([24]) examined the rhetorical nature of the corporate person within the context of public relations. More recently, St. John ([131]) explored the importance of corporate personality and identity, showing how corporate persons utilize personas to communicate in a variety of ways.

Arguably one of the most controversial aspects of corporate personhood is the kind of personhood the corporation attained in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad ([127]) (Horwitz, [74]). Santa Clara was a tax case, but the main controversy concerned how the railroad corporation appropriated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to claim that it was a person just like a human person and entitled to the same personhood protections. According to Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (U.S. Const., amend. XIV, [139], para. 1)

Perhaps thinking that it was a priori understood, the Fourteenth Amendment's authors did not specify what kind of "person" the powerful amendment was especially intended to protect. However, in an 1867 speech, Representative John A. Bingham, a primary author of the Fourteenth Amendment, made his views on race clear. Attempting to persuade his audience of presumably white people to ignore fearmongers and to support racial equality in America, he said:

[T]hey undertake to alarm you with the plea that we are about to make the "nigger," to use their nomenclature, equal to a white man .... "Niggers equal to white men," and they wind up saying, "This is a white man's Government." What blasphemy! Pray sir ... how white ought a man be before he has the right to live? You have the power ... because of your superior numbers, to disenfranchise four millions of natural citizens of the Republic. Suppose the state of things were reversed, and the black men had the power, would you have them deal thus with you and your children? (Magliocca, [94], p. 140)

This passage displays a key Fourteenth Amendment framer's views on race in society. Bingham entreats his audience to renounce the idea that a person's race makes them better or worse than another human being. Appealing to a sense of shared humanity, he asks whites to imagine themselves in the same situation blacks faced. Finally, his use of the N-word did not appear as an attempt to dehumanize black people but to differentiate himself from racists and their usages. Given these circumstances, it seems plausible that a man with such views authored the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the persons most in need of its help – America's newly emancipated population. There is also consensus among historical (Zinn, [151]), legal (Aljalian, [2]; Graham, [62]) and business (Bowman, [12]) scholars that the core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect the personhood of newly freed black people.

Nevertheless, the potential for ambiguity surrounding the usage of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment enabled the railroad corporation in Santa Clara to situate its personhood as no different from that of a human person. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the corporation's perspective. Personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment opened the door for corporations to gain a series of constitutional rights all having the effect of protecting and expanding corporate wealth and power (see Ritz, [123], for a list of U.S. Supreme Court cases; see also St. John, [131]). Ultimately, while corporate persons grew in wealth, power, and prestige, the personhood of black Americans remained perpetually in peril.

This CRT explication of the corporation has exposed its racialized roots. The modern-day corporation emerged as a form of organizational personhood born of an appropriated racialized discourse in the Fourteenth Amendment. Although communication scholarship has explored corporate personhood, rarely has this been done through the lens of race. Examining the corporate person through the lens of race confirms that race is a central and constitutive feature of the corporate form. This history is important because it provides a more comprehensive conceptualization of the corporation beyond its commonplace understanding as a race-neutral business organization. From the beginning, U.S. corporations have been bound up in processes of race, racialization, and racism; public relations scholars should be knowledgeable of this history and its enduring legacy as an inheritance with implications for our work for, or on behalf of, corporations today.

Race

A few years before George Floyd's death ignited protests worldwide and apparently led Amazon to donate 10 USD million to organizations that support justice and equity (Amazon, [6]), that corporation's online marketplace displayed smiling white children advertising apparel for sale that bore the phrase, "Slavery gets shit done" alongside images of Egyptian-like pyramids. Public pressure eventually forced the ad's removal (Guilbert, [63]). I begin with this example because it is indicative of the relationship between corporations and race in the United States on at least two levels. First, the ad represents the insensitivity with which corporate America has traditionally treated racial matters. Secondly, in a very real sense, slavery has "gotten things done" for corporations and similar organizations.

Railroad companies relied on slave labor to build and maintain their operations (Striplin, [135]). Insurance companies profited from slavery by insuring the lives of black people as property, not human beings (Biondi, [9]; Janssen, [77]). Slave-picked cotton from the South fueled the economic success of many Northern textile mills (Ray, [122]). Smaller enterprises such as newspapers also profited from slavery by advertising slaves for sale or for capture, and slave labor was a staple in the Southern tourism and hospitality industry (Dunaway, [41]). Slavery also contributed to the development of scientific management – a way to organize labor and conduct work that emerged during the Industrial Revolution and is still a part of corporate America today (Rosenthal, [126]).

Post-chattel slavery, the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson ([115]) and the rise of Jim Crow returned black people to a slavery-like existence in the South (History.com Editors, [69]). In the North, "Unions of virtually all trades excluded black workers from their ranks and often entirely barred black employment in certain fields," with immigrant laborers practicing some of the most vehemently anti-black exclusion (Crenshaw, [33], p. 114). Yet the dominant ideology of race in America was (and remains) that black poverty and hardship are the result of an innate black inability to adopt values of hard work and discipline, not the result of centuries-old, multimodal, racial oppression (Crenshaw, [33]).

Affirmative action, a set of policies that sought to "begin the essential work of rethinking rights, power, equality, race, and property from the perspective of those whose access to each of these has been limited by their oppression" (Harris, [64], p. 288), aimed to remedy the inequity of historical oppression. However, its transformative potential was thwarted from the start because:

by and large ... the very same whites who administered explicit policies of segregation and racial domination kept their jobs as decision makers in employment offices of companies, schools, lending offices, banks, and so on. In institution after institution, progressive reformers found themselves struggling over the implementation of integrationist policy with the former administrators of segregation who soon regrouped as an old guard "concerned" over the deterioration of "standards." (Crenshaw et al., [32], p. xvi)

Although many whites supported affirmative action, its opponents were able to successfully undermine affirmative action policies (Kelly & Dobbin, [80]). As affirmative action was weakened, the less threatening idea of "managing diversity" emerged (Thomas, [138]). While diversity management kept race on corporate America's radar and as part of the public relations agenda (Edwards, [45]; Hon & Brunner, [73]; Mundy, [102]), diversity and inclusion programs often lacked formal enforcement and an explicit commitment to righting racial wrongs perpetuated by corporate organizations. The history of the relationship between corporations and race illustrates how corporations have played an active role in maintaining racial inequity, therefore contributing to racial strife, and this is what suggests corporations have a responsibility to race.

Corporate social responsibility

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is contested territory with many conceptualizations (Carroll, [18]). Bowen ([11]), an influential CSR scholar during the 1950s and beyond, explained that CSR:

refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society. This definition does not imply that businessmen as members of society lack the right to criticize the values accepted in society and to work toward their improvement. Indeed, in view of their great power and influence, they may well have an obligation to do so. (p. 6)

For Bowen and thinkers like him, the extraordinary power of corporations morally obligated them to embrace social responsibilities (Carroll, [18]). CSR approaches that emphasized the needs of society rather than the needs of business prevailed in the 1950s (Carroll, [18]).

Today, however, CSR approaches that prioritize the needs of business and situate CSR as a means to secure financial gain, competitive advantage, or otherwise achieve corporate objectives appear to be most prevalent (Melé, [99]; Moura‐Leite & Padgett, [101]). This enlightened self-interest CSR perspective is captured by Porter and Kramer ([120]), who argued that "[t]he essential test that should guide CSR is not whether a cause is worthy but whether it presents an opportunity to create shared value – that is, a meaningful benefit for society that is also valuable to the business" (p. 84).

Although CSR began as a business discourse, it has become an important part of public relations, and scholars have defined CSR in a variety of ways (see Boyd, [13]; Coombs & Holladay, [29]; Gaither, Austin, & Schulz, [58]; Heath, [67]; Park & Dodd, [112]). A relatively standard definition is offered by Waymer ([145]), who described CSR as "the notion that organizations are responsible for addressing matters – whether they be employee, consumer, community, or economic related – that are important to the communities in which they operate" (p. 239).

Some public relations CSR scholarship has addressed the subject of race (Pratt, [121]; Waymer, [145]), but scholarship that explicitly centers the needs of society in terms of racial justice is lacking. Still, public relations scholars have expanded productively the conceptualization of CSR in important directions that sharpen our understanding of why corporations engage with social issues. For example, Dodd and Supa ([39]) introduced corporate social advocacy (CSA), which refers to:

an organization making a public statement or taking a public stance on social-political issues. Whether these stances are planned, as in the formal output of communication, or not, as in the case of a CEO making an off-the-cuff remark to a journalist: the outcome is the perception by the public that the organization is linked in some way with the issue. (p. 5)

The CSA concept holds that when corporations and their leaders take positions on social issues, there is a potentially significant impact on consumer intent to purchase, company profit, brand equity, and the organization (Dodd, [38]; Dodd & Supa, [39], [40]).

Janssen ([78]) also pushed the conceptual boundaries of the intersection between communication and CSR, introducing the concept of corporate historical responsibility (CHR). It holds that organizations have obligations toward those who have historically suffered harm as a result of their actions. The concept intends to help organizations transcend their controversial pasts by developing appropriate responses to address them. Janssen ([78]) used CHR to analyze forced labor at Volkswagen and the company's response. Although CHR can be applied to race, the latter subject was not comprehensively addressed in Janssen's work.

CRR theory shares similarities with CSR, CSA, and CHR. All four areas primarily attempt to explain how corporations address complex social issues, recognize the importance of CEO and leadership involvement, and respect the importance of communication; and all four areas view corporations as powerful and potentially productive actors that can help make positive changes in society. However, CRR theory is the only one that emphasizes race and directly prioritizes the needs of society; it does so through its focus on improving race relations to create a more socially just world.

The business case rationale (see Argenti, [7]) is not an impetus for CRR. This theory does not proceed from a corporate-centric framework that primarily values the work corporations undertake to benefit society in terms of monetary benefits generated for the organization. Rather than monetary value, the primary payoff according to CRR theory would be the corporation's contribution to improving race relations and achieving racial justice, not because it is the profitable thing to do, but because it is the right thing to do. A primary focus on ROI is legitimate for some corporate initiatives intended to benefit society, but there is also room for perspectives that aim to do good for its own sake (Frey, Pearce, Pollock, Artz, & Murphy, [56]), and this is the contextual province of CRR theory.

If we concur with Vujnovic and Kruckeberg's ([144]) point that "the primary goal of public relations as a professional occupation, if not a profession, is to serve the community and society-at-large" (p. 137), then we should embrace racial justice in public relations theory. The corporate responsibility to race theory is a step in that direction.

A theory of corporate responsibility to race

The corporate responsibility to race theory provides a new theoretical avenue to identify, understand, contextualize, theorize, and analyze corporate communications about race. CRR focuses on exploring how corporations communicate to improve race relations and support racial justice. The impetus for developing the theory emerges from my empirical observations of corporate communications about race such as campaigns, statements, and messaging. Although much theory-building in public relations results from incorporating theories outside the discipline (Ferguson, [52]), CRR is one of the few public relations theories to emerge directly from communication materials and practices within our own discipline.

Theoretical premises

CRR is founded on three premises: (a) Corporations have a responsibility to support racial justice by communicating in ways that improve race relations because (b) corporations are organizational forms that have emerged through processes of racism and racialization, and (c) corporations have directly and indirectly perpetuated – and benefited from – racial discrimination and oppression, which has contributed significantly to racial strife and social instability. Put simply, because the institution of corporate America has capitalized on racial discrimination and perpetuated racial oppression, the institution as well as the organizations that comprise it have a responsibility to work toward achieving a more racially just and harmonious society.

Public relations is central to the corporate capacity to demonstrate a responsibility to race because public relations is the conduit through which corporate organizations communicate their perspectives on matters of import to stakeholders and publics. As a vehicle through which ideological positions are relayed and resisted (cf. Kerr, [82]; Logan, [91]), public relations conveys and counters visions of reality as it also facilitates the co-creation and contestation of meaning, which make it a necessary part of social transformation.

Although there are many ways corporations can demonstrate a responsibility to race, none can be done without some form of public relations, whether it is media relations, employee communications, leadership communications, or community relations, as a few examples. If a corporation chooses to demonstrate a responsibility to race by launching a campaign, donating to racial justice organizations, instituting new HR policies, changing corporate values, embarking on all of the above, or doing something else altogether, public relations would inherently be involved, by leading or supporting research, planning, implementation, and evaluation (cf. Broom & Sha, [15]) of these initiatives.

Communication principles

With CRR's major premises outlined, I contend that CRR theory in action is communication that uses corporate resources to draw attention to racism and to advocate for racial justice with the goal of improving race relations to achieve a more equitable and harmonious society. CRR has five communication principles. First, CRR communications must draw attention to racism. This means they must name a racist act, practice, structure, or system, not vaguely allude to it. Second, these communications should highlight the implications of racism and illuminate the complexities with which racism operates. This includes analyzing how racism affects people who are the target of its violence, examining complicity with overt and covert racism, and exploring the effects of racism on society. Third, CRR communications must advocate for racial justice and racial equity. They should challenge racism; for example, they could counter microaggressions with microaffirmations (cf. Pompper, [118]). CRR communications may even articulate a vision for anti-racist action by the corporation, its stakeholders, or publics. Fourth, CRR communications should express a desire to improve race relations in an effort to achieve a more equitable and harmonious society. Therefore, CRR communications should not display a divisive spirit. They should admonish racism as much as they should invite (cf. Foss & Griffin, [55]) racists to see the world in anti-racist, racially just ways. Fifth, CRR communications should prioritize the needs of society over the economic needs of the corporation because CRR communications are not intended to achieve ROI, unlike other corporate areas such as sales, marketing, and product development that are designed to generate profit.

These CRR communication principles can be used as guidelines in research and analyses directed toward corporate communications about race, particularly those concerning issues of racial justice. They can also be used to guide the creation of communication plans, programs, campaigns, and messaging. The principles are not presented in order of importance, and I am hesitant to suggest a number or combination of principles that should be used for communication to be categorized as CRR because creative freedom in content creation and theoretical freedom for research and analysis are important.

Potential applications

Theoretical resonance

CRR shares the concerns of several public relations theoretical approaches. It resonates with the priorities of communitarian (cf. Starck & Kruckeberg, [134]; Valentini, Kruckeberg, & Starck, [141]; Vujnovic & Kruckeberg, [144]) and socio-cultural (cf. Edwards & Hodges, [49]) perspectives in public relations. It is committed to exploring how public relations can advance social justice causes (cf. Coombs & Holladay, [30]; Golombisky, [61]). CRR is inclined toward democratic approaches to public relations (cf. Edwards, [47]; Heath, Waymer, & Palenchar, [68]). CRR values both advocacy (cf. Edgett, [43]; Heath, [66]; Hon, [72]) and a dialogic orientation to communication (cf. Kent & Taylor, [81]; Pearson, [114]; Taylor & Kent, [136]). CRR also subscribes to the philosophy that public relations can and should help society become more fully functional (cf. Heath, [67]).

CRR gains inspiration from critical approaches that critique structures of power and illuminate pathways toward liberation (cf. L'Etang, McKie, Snow, & Xifra, [85]), and it shares the theoretical, material, and embodied concerns of intersectionality (cf. Vardeman & Sebesta, [142]; Vardeman-Winter & Tindall, [143]). CRR aligns with the priorities of an insider activist orientation to public relations (cf. Holtzhausen, [71]; Pompper, [117]); however, CRR does not have to assume the form of activism (cf. Ciszek, [28]; Demetrious, [36]). CRR can remain at the level of advocacy, serving as a conduit for activism. CRR can be used in conjunction with these theories, other theoretical approaches, or independently as its own theoretical framework. How a corporate responsibility to race is theoretically articulated depends on the questions it is used to pursue and the methodological approach shaping inquiry.

Methodological promise

The theoretical flexibility of CRR that contributes to its theory-building capacity in public relations also supports its potential use with a variety of research methods. For example, a CRR analytical lens could enhance – as well as be enhanced by – qualitative methods such as case studies, interviews, focus groups, and content and thematic analyses. Researchers could collect various forms of data related to corporations, race, and justice from different sources such as corporate archives, conversations reflecting the perspectives of internal and external constituencies, social media posts, and news media coverage, for example. Thick description of the data, coupled with systematic, rich analysis would advance in-depth understanding of how some individuals and groups experience and inform corporate racial justice communications.

CRR could also enrich – and be enriched through – quantitative methods such as surveys or experiments. For example, surveys could gauge public opinion about a corporation's racial justice communications and their perceived impact on society. Experiments could determine if some CRR premises or communication principles are more effective than others as well as pinpoint how dimensions of CRR interact with each other and with other variables such as business industry (cf. Inoue & Lee, [76]). Perhaps a CRR scale could be developed to measure a corporation's commitment to racial justice and the societal effects of its advocacy.

CRR readily lends itself to rhetorical analysis (cf. Foss, [54]), critical discourse analysis (cf. Fairclough, [50]), and critical race methods (cf. DeCuir-Gunby et al., [34]). Here, researchers could analyze texts produced by corporations or by mass media, as well as other forms of societal discourse. Finally, CRR could function methodologically as a theoretical framework or analytical lens to critique corporate engagement with racial issues, with close attention paid to how corporations challenge the racial status quo, advocate for racial justice, and facilitate harmony.

Research directions

Philosophically, CRR responds to the call for more social justice research in communication from those who believe that:

communication scholars, practitioners, educators, and students alike have much to contribute in the struggle to challenge norms, practices, relations, and structures that promote and maintain inequality and injustice. The question is whether we are part of the problem or part of the solution. (Frey et al., [56], p. 123)

CRR provides a pathway for both scholars and practitioners to contribute to the solution.

New questions

CRR invites new questions such as: How does the pursuit of racial justice reconfigure the objectives of public relations? Theoretically and practically, what is at stake when corporations communicate about racial justice? What is at stake when they do not? How can corporate communications about race help us build, enhance, and refine public relations theory? What do public relations' discursive engagements with race teach us about race in America? What does an authentic, genuine corporate responsibility to race look like? How would we measure a corporation's responsibility to race? Should we measure it at all? How is the pursuit of racial justice furthered through public relations? How can public relations theory and practices shift conversations about whiteness beyond privilege and discrimination toward solidarity, allyship, accountability, and equity? In what ways could CRR theoretically invigorate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts? These questions and many others can potentially be addressed through CRR-oriented research.

The growing trend of corporations communicating about social justice issues such as race (see Ciszek & Logan, [27]; Edelman, [42]; Hoffmann, Nyborg, Averhoff, & Olesen, [70]; Kim, Overton, Bhalla, & Li, [83]; Logan, [92], [93]; Novak & Richmond, [106]; Wilcox, [147]; Zheng, [150]) means that there is an array of opportunities to explore the corporate responsibility to race theoretical framework. The opportunities to engage in CRR research are aided by the fact that CRR can be proactive or reactive, can be directed to internal and external publics, and can potentially take various forms.

New investigations

CRR theory could be used to explore public relations campaigns such as the 2015 Starbucks Race Together initiative (cf. Starbucks, [132]). Met with both criticism and praise, the campaign attempted to raise awareness of racism and create a sense of identification (cf. Cheney, [23]) around improving race relations. CRR theory could also scrutinize corporate crises. A potential example is when a Starbucks employee at a Philadelphia location improperly called the police on two black men who were then wrongfully arrested, leading Starbucks to close 8,000 U.S. stores for racial bias education in 2018 (Starbucks, [133]). In 2019, Sephora took similar action, shutting its doors for diversity training following allegations of racism (Bromwich, [14]).

A CRR approach could also be taken to analyze advertising campaigns. Possible examples are Procter and Gamble's "The Look" campaign, which ran commercials that depicted microaggressions against black men (P&G, [110]), and its 2017 "My Black is Beautiful" ad campaign, which featured several "The Talk" commercials that portrayed the types of conversations generations of black parents have had to have with their children to prepare them to survive in a world of normative whiteness (P&G, [111]). Serving an anti-racist educational purpose, this advertising content is also featured on P&G's "Equality. Justice. Action." corporate blog (P&G, [109]), which presents excellent material for CRR theory building and analysis. Nike's 2018 "Dream Crazy" commercial presents another possibility. The commercial featured controversial former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick – a symbol of racial justice activism – yet the commercial did not specifically address racial injustice (Nike, [105]). It would be interesting to compare the P&G commercials, the Nike ad, and a 2017 Pepsi commercial starring Kendall Jenner at a faux protest against police brutality (Smith, [129]).

CRR may also be used to analyze leadership communication, such as the 2016 speech delivered by AT&T president Randall Stephenson (cf. Fields, [53]). He declared his support for Black Lives Matter, called for increased interracial understanding, and advocated for improved race relations. CRR could also be used to analyze corporate vision, mission, or value statements. A potential example is Ben & Jerry's, perhaps the only large corporation with racial justice as a corporate value (cf. Ben & Jerry's, [8]). Collaborative corporate efforts such as the CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion organization, co-founded by Timothy F. Ryan, U.S. Chair and Senior Partner of PwC, could also be analyzed with CRR (cf. CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion, [20]).

I have offered only a few examples that potentially could be explored with CRR. Some of these have already been explored using other theoretical approaches, but that does not detract from the opportunity to gain additional or different insights using a CRR approach. Moreover, recent times have ushered in numerous new corporate communications about race that could be examined with CRR.

New explanations

Sha ([128]) noted that "at the most basic level, a theory is an idea or an explanation about how things work" (p. 1). As an addition to public relations theory, CRR provides a way for scholars and practitioners to identify, contextualize, analyze, and theorize corporate communications about matters of race and their implications in new and nuanced ways that are attuned to the societal significance of race. CRR enables scholars and practitioners to reimagine corporate power as a productive force for racial equity and harmony in their analyses of corporate communication and action.

Thus, CRR can help us to better understand the corporation, its relations to race, and its responsibility to society as suggested by the theory's basic premises: (a) that corporations have a responsibility to support racial justice by communicating in ways that improve race relations because (b) they emerged through processes of racism and racialization, and (c) they have perpetuated – and benefited from – racial oppression, which has fomented racial strife and social instability. The historical connections between corporations, race, and responsibility substantiate the need for both social change and theory that helps us make sense of how corporations attempt to participate in that change as well as the implications of their communications.

Conclusion

The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted anew the sickness of racial injustice. The physical, economic, and psychological health of black and Latinx populations are disproportionately affected by the virus (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], [19]) that President Trump referred to as the "Kung Flu" (Lee, [87]) or the "China Virus" (Chiu, [26]), fanning the flames of anti-Asian racism (Chiu, [26]) and resuscitating "yellow peril" racist stereotypes (Lee, [88]). Despite the privileges of whiteness, white people have not escaped the devastation of either COVID-19 or racism. In solidarity, many have joined the protests over racial injustice following instances of anti-black violence during the first half of 2020: the vigilante-style shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in rural, South Georgia (Fausset, [51]); the police killing of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky (Carrega & Ghebremedhin, [17]); and the nearly nine-minute knee to the neck George Floyd endured before dying under the weight of a Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer (Altman, [5]). CRR positions us to confront pressing concerns such as how the public relations field should respond to racism and the accompanying injustices that continue to threaten and compromise society's well-being.

It is also important to recognize that corporations are not the only organizations complicit with racial injustice. For example, the State, via its various organizations, has long been considered the main site of racial oppression (Omi & Winant, [108]). Many U.S. universities also bear responsibility for racial injustice because they appropriated indigenous land (Lee & Ahtone, [89]) and benefitted from slave labor and financial donations from slavers (Harris, [65]). These circumstances suggest that the philosophical orientation of CRR theory could one day serve as a basis to develop an organizational responsibility to race theory to examine a variety of organizations including nonprofits and NGOs, which wield increasingly significant global influence. Future CRR research also could explore interdisciplinary possibilities by engaging with CEO activism (Chatterji & Toffel, [22]) and Race in Marketing (RIM) scholarship (Johnson et al., [79]), for example.

Although corporations historically have contributed to racial injustice, several of today's corporations indicate that they want to help right historical wrongs, improve race relations, and contribute to a more just and inclusive world (Friedman, [57]; Knight, [84]). Public relations practitioners and scholars can transform these abstract aspirations into concrete communications and action by using CRR to develop and critique communication plans, programs, campaigns, and messages that address past wrongs. They can also engage the normative aspects of CRR to take a stand on the contemporary racial reckoning occurring in the United States (NBC News, [104]). There are innumerable possibilities.

There are also risks. Corporations communicating about social justice issues, especially when it comes to race, can face intense criticism (Ciszek & Logan, [27]; Hoffmann et al., [70]; Logan, [92]; Novak & Richmond, [106]), and CRR provides no easy solution. CRR is a starting point rather than an ending point, and it may even introduce more questions than answers. However, CRR does offer a principled theoretical approach to engage corporate communications about race and justice. While CRR does not naïvely assume corporate communication can unilaterally undo enduring systemic and structural racism, it does hold that corporate power and resources leveraged via proven (and yet to be innovated) public relations strategies and tactics offer means to resist racism as well as foster justice and harmony.

Still, critics of corporate involvement in social justice issues are right to be suspicious of corporations, given some of their past misdeeds. Yet organizations and individuals do evolve, and progressive change has always involved a variety of actors. The theory of corporate responsibility to race is a catalyst to consider the possibilities and examine the significance of public relations in service to racial justice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

1 I view public relations as encompassing corporate communication, which I characterize broadly as statements, messages, campaigns, and other forms of communication and action from corporate organizations. Thus, at times, the terms public relations and corporate communication are used interchangeably in this article. See Roberts-Bowman and Walker ([124]). Aguirre, A., Jr. (2000). Academic storytelling: A critical race theory story of affirmative action. Sociological Perspectives, 43 (2), 319 – 339. doi: 10.2307/1389799 2 Aljalian, N. (1999). The fourteenth amendment and personhood: Fact or fiction. St. John's Law Review, 73 (2), 495 – 540. 3 Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press. 4 Allen, D. S. (2001). The First Amendment and the doctrine of corporate personhood: Collapsing the press-corporation distinction. Journalism, 2 (3), 225 – 278. doi: 10.1177/146488490100200303 5 Altman, A. (2020, June 4). Why the killing of George Floyd sparked an American uprising. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/5847967/george-floyd-protests-trump/ 6 Amazon. (2020, June 3). Amazon donates $10 million to organizations supporting justice and equity. Author. Retrieved from https://blog.aboutamazon.com/policy/amazon-donates-10-million-to-organizations-supporting-justice-and-equity 7 Argenti, P. A. (2016). Corporate responsibility. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. 8 Ben & Jerry's. (n.d.). Racial justice. Retrieved from https://www.benjerry.com/values/issues-we-care-about/racial-justice 9 Biondi, M. (2003). The rise of the reparations movement. Radical History Review, 87 (87), 5 – 18. doi: 10.1215/01636545-2003-87-5 Blair, M. (2013). Corporate personhood and the corporate persona. University of Illinois Law Review, 3, 785 – 820. Bowen, H. R. (2013). Social responsibilities of the businessman. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. (Original work published 1953). Bowman, S. R. (1996). The modern corporation and American political thought: Law, power, and ideology. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Boyd, J. (2012). The corporation-as-middle-class-person: Corporate social responsibility and class. In D. Waymer (Ed.), Culture, social class, and race in public relations: Perspectives and applications (pp. 45 – 55). Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Bromwich, J. E. (2019, June 4). Sephora will shut down for an hour of diversity training tomorrow. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/style/sephora-will-shut-down-for-an-hour-of-diversity-training-tomorrow.html Broom, G. M., & Sha, B.-L. (2013). Cutlip and center's effective public relations (11th ed.). Boston : Pearson. Butler, H. N. (1989). The contractual theory of the corporation. George Mason University Law Review, 11, 99. Carrega, C., & Ghebremedhin, S. (2020, November 17). Timeline: Inside the investigation of Breonna Taylor's killing and its aftermath. ABC News. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-inside-investigation-breonna-taylors-killing-aftermath/story?id=71217247 Carroll, A. B. (2013). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. In A. Crane, A. McWilliamson, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 19 – 46). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. CDC Centers for Disease Control. (2020, July 24). Health equity considerations and racial and ethnic minority groups. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ceoaction.com/ Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Explication (Vol. 1). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2018). The new CEO activists. Harvard Business Review's 10 MUST, 47. https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-new-ceo-activists Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69 (2), 143 – 158. doi: 10.1080/00335638309383643 Cheney, G. (1992). The corporate person (re)presents itself. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 165 – 183). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Cheney, G., & McMillan, J. J. (1990). Organizational rhetoric and the practice of criticism. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18 (2), 93 – 114. doi: 10.1080/00909889009360318 Chiu, A. (2020, March 20). Trump has no qualms about calling coronavirus the 'Chinese virus.' That's a dangerous attitude, experts say. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/20/coronavirus-trump-chinese-virus/ Ciszek, E., & Logan, N. (2018). Challenging the dialogic promise: How Ben & Jerry's support for Black lives matter fosters dissensus on social media. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30 (3), 115 – 127. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2018.1498342 Ciszek, E. L. (2015). Bridging the gap: Mapping the relationship between activism and public relations. Public Relations Review, 41 (4), 447 – 455. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.05.016 Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). Managing corporate social responsibility: A communication approach. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2018). Social issue qua wicked problems. Journal of Communication Management, 22 (1), 79 – 95. doi: 10.1108/JCOM-11-2016-0093 Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43 (6), 1241 – 1299. doi: 10.2307/1229039 Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York, NY: The New Press. Crenshaw, K. W. (1995). Race, reform, retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in anti-discrimination law. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. 103 – 122). New York, NY: New Press. DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Chapman, T. K., & Schutz, P. A. (2019). Critical race theory: Racial justice and education: Understanding critical race research methods. In J. T. DeCuir, T. K. Chapman, & P. A. Schutz (Eds.), Understanding critical race research methods: Lessons from the field (pp. 3 – 10). New York, NY: Routledge. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: New York University Press. Demetrious, K. (2013). Public relations, activism, and social change: Speaking up. New York, NY: Routledge. Dewey, J. (1926). The historic background of corporate legal personality. The Yale Law Journal, 35 (6), 655 – 673. doi: 10.2307/788782 Dodd, M. (2018). Globalization, pluralization, and erosion: The impact of shifting societal expectations for advocacy and public good. The Journal of Public Interest Communications, 2 (2), 221. doi: 10.32473/jpic.v2.i2.p221 Dodd, M. D., & Supa, D. W. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring "corporate social advocacy" communication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance. Journal of Public Relations, 8 (3), 1 – 23. Dodd, M. D., & Supa, D. W. (2015). Testing the viability of corporate social advocacy as a predictor of purchase intention. Communication Research Reports, 32 (4), 287 – 293. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2015.1089853 Dunaway, W. A. (2003). Slavery in the American mountain south. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge. Edelman, R. (2020, June 9). A universal demand for change. Edelman. Retrieved from https://www.edelman.com/research/universal-demand-change Edgett, R. (2002). Toward an ethical framework for advocacy in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14 (1), 1 – 26. doi: 10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1401_1 Edwards, L. (2010). "Race" in public relations. In R. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of public relations (pp. 205 – 221). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Edwards, L. (2011). Diversity in public relations. In L. Edwards & C. E. Hodges (Eds.), Public relations, society & culture: Theoretical and empirical explorations. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Edwards, L. (2012). Critical race theory and public relations. In D. Waymer (Ed.), Culture, social class and race in public relations: Perspectives and applications (pp. 57 – 78). Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Edwards, L. (2016). The role of public relations in deliberative systems. Journal of Communication, 66 (1), 60 – 81. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12199 Edwards, L. (2018). Understanding public relations: Theory, culture and society. London, UK: Sage. Edwards, L., & Hodges, C. E. (Eds.). (2011). Public relations, society & culture: Theoretical and empirical explorations. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Fausset, R. (2020, December 17). What we know about the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georgia.html Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30 (4), 164 – 178. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810 Fields, J. (2016, September 25). AT&T CEO randall Stephenson addresses the racial tension in American society [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThO74-oFt%5fQ&t=3s Foss, S. K. (2009). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communications Monographs, 62 (1), 2 – 18. doi: 10.1080/03637759509376345 Frey, L. R., Pearce, W. B., Pollock, M. A., Artz, L., & Murphy, B. A. (1996). Looking for justice in all the wrong places: On a communication approach to social justice. Communication Studies, 47 (1–2), 110 – 127. doi: 10.1080/10510979609368467 Friedman, G. (2020, August 23). Here's what companies are promising to do to fight racism. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/article/companies-racism-george-floyd-protests.html Gaither, B. M., Austin, L., & Schulz, M. (2018). Delineating CSR and social change: Querying corporations as actors for social good. Public Relations Inquiry, 7 (1), 45 – 61. doi: 10.1177/2046147X17743544 Gee, H. (1999). Beyond black and white: Selected writings by Asian Americans within the critical race theory movement. St. Mary's Law Journal, 30 (3), 759 – 800. Gindis, D. (2016). Legal personhood and the firm: Avoiding anthropomorphism and equivocation. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12 (3), 499 – 513. doi: 10.1017/S1744137415000235 Golombisky, K. (2015). Renewing the commitments of feminist public relations theory from velvet ghetto to social justice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27 (5), 389 – 415. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2015.1086653 Graham, H. J. (1968). Everyman's constitution: Historical essays on the fourteenth amendment, the "conspiracy theory," and American constitutionalism. Madison, WI: Madison State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Guilbert, K. (2018 January, 22). Amazon pulls kids clothes bearing "slavery gets shit done" slogan. Thomson Reuters Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-slavery/amazon-pulls-kids-clothes-bearing-slavery-gets-shit-done-slogan-idUSKBN1FB1OW Harris, C. (1995). Whiteness as property. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. 276 – 291). New York, NY: The New Press. Harris, L. M. (2020). Higher education's reckoning with slavery. American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/higher-education%E2%80%99s-reckoning-slavery#.YAHaoeB7k%5fU Heath, R. L. (1980). Corporate advocacy: An application of speech communication perspectives and skills—and more. Communication Education, 29 (4), 370 – 377. doi: 10.1080/03634528009378442 Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations' research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18 (2), 93 – 114. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_2 Heath, R. L., Waymer, D., & Palenchar, M. J. (2013). Is the universe of democracy, rhetoric, and public relations whole cloth or three separate galaxies? Public Relations Review, 39 (4), 271 – 279. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.017 History.com Editors. (2018, February 28). Jim Crow laws. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/jim-crow-laws Hoffmann, J., Nyborg, K., Averhoff, C., & Olesen, S. (2020). The contingency of corporate political advocacy: Nike's "dream crazy" campaign with Colin Kaepernick. Public Relations Inquiry, 9 (2), 155 – 175. doi: 10.1177/2046147X20920802 Holtzhausen, D. (2014). Public relations as activism: Postmodern approaches to theory & practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Hon, L. (2015). Digital social advocacy in the justice for Trayvon campaign. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27 (4), 299 – 321. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2015.1027771 Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. (2000). Diversity issues and public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12 (4), 309 – 340. doi: 10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1204_2 Horwitz, M. J. (1985). Santa Clara revisited: The development of corporate theory. West Virginia Law Review, 88 (2), 173. Ignatiev, N. (1995). How the Irish became white. Milton Park, UK: Routledge. Inoue, Y., & Lee, S. (2011). Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Management, 32 (4), 790 – 804. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.06.019 Janssen, C. I. (2012). Addressing corporate ties to slavery: Corporate apologia in a discourse of reconciliation. Communication Studies, 63 (1), 18 – 35. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2011.627974 Janssen, C. I. (2013). Corporate historical responsibility (CHR): Addressing a corporate past of forced labor at Volkswagen. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41 (1), 64 – 83. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2012.731698 Johnson, G. D., Thomas, K. D., Harrison, A. K., & Grier, S. A. (Eds.). (2019). Race in the marketplace: Crossing critical boundaries. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management: Employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961 to 1996. American Behavioral Scientist, 41 (7), 960 – 984. doi: 10.1177/0002764298041007008 Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28 (1), 21 – 37. doi: 10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X Kerr, R. (2005). The rights of corporate speech: Mobil oil and the legal development of the voice of big business. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Kim, J. K., Overton, H., Bhalla, N., & Li, J. Y. (2020). Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and the politicization of sports: Examining perceived organizational motives and public responses. Public Relations Review, 46 (2), 101856. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101856 Knight, R. (2020, December). How to hold your company accountable to its promise of racial justice. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2020/12/how-to-hold-your-company-accountable-to-its-promise-of-racial-justice L'Etang, J., McKie, D., Snow, N., & Xifra, J. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of critical public relations. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (2006). Toward a critical race theory of education. Critical Race Theory in Education: All God's Children Got a Song, 11, 30. Lee, B. Y. (2020a, June 24). Trump once again calls COVID-19 Coronavirus The 'Kung Flu.' Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/06/24/trump-once-again-calls-covid-19-coronavirus-the-kung-flu/?sh=5dbbbc21f59a Lee, M. (2020b, March 9). Coronavirus fears show how 'model minority' Asian Americans become the 'yellow peril'. NBC. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/coronavirus-fears-show-how-model-minority-asian-americans-become-yellow-ncna1151671 Lee, R., & Ahtone, T. (2020, May 19). How they did it: Exposing how U.S. universities profited from indigenous land. Pulitzer Center. Retrieved from https://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/how-they-did-it-exposing-how-us-universities-profited-indigenous-land Logan, N. (2011). The white leader prototype: A critical analysis of race in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23 (4), 442 – 457. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2011.605974 Logan, N. (2014). Corporate voice and ideology: An alternate approach to understanding public relations history. Public Relations Review, 40 (4), 661 – 668. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.12.006 Logan, N. (2016). The Starbucks race together initiative: Examining a public relations campaign with critical race theory. Public Relations Inquiry, 5 (1), 93 – 113. doi: 10.1177/2046147X15626969 Logan, N. (2019). Corporate personhood and the corporate responsibility to race. Journal of Business Ethics, 154 (4), 977 – 988. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3893-3 Magliocca, G. N. (2013). American founding son: John Bingham and the invention of the fourteenth amendment. New York, NY: New York University Press. Mark, G. A. (1987). The personification of the business corporation in American law. The University of Chicago Law Review, 54 (4), 1441 – 1483. doi: 10.2307/1599739 Martinez, A. (2020). Counterstory: The rhetoric and writing of critical race theory. Conference on College Composition and Communication. National Council of Teachers of English, Champaign, Illinois. Matsuda, M. (1995). Critical race theory and critical legal studies: Contestation and coalition. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. 63 – 79). New York, NY: New Press. McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Retrieved from https://nationalseedproject.org/images/documents/Knapsack_plus_Notes-Peggy_McIntosh.pdf Melé, D. (2013). Corporate social responsibility theories. In A. Crane, A. McWilliamson, D. Matten, J. Moon., & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 47 – 82). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Millon, D. (2001). The ambiguous significance of corporate personhood. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=264141 Moura‐Leite, R. C., & Padgett, R. C. (2011). Historical background of corporate social responsibility. Social Responsibility Journal, 7 (4), 528 – 539. doi: 10.1108/1747111111117511 Mundy, D. E. (2015). Diversity 2.0: How the public relations function can take the lead in a new generation of diversity and inclusion (D&I) initiatives. Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations, 2 (2), 1 – 35. National Education Association. (n.d.). Racial justice in education—resource guide. Racial justice in Education. Retrieved from https://neaedjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Racial-Justice-in-Education.pdf NBC News. (n.d.). America's racial reckoning. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/americas-racial-reckoning Nike. (n.d.). Nike's new just do it campaign. Retrieved from https://news.nike.com/featured_video/just-do-it-dream-crazy-film Novak, A. N., & Richmond, J. C. (2019). E-Racing together: How Starbucks reshaped and deflected racial conversations on social media. Public Relations Review, 45 (3), 101773. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.02.006 Olmsted, A. P. (1998). Words are acts: Critical race theory as a rhetorical construct. Howard Journal of Communications, 9 (4), 323 – 331. doi: 10.1080/106461798246934 Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2015). Racial formation in the United States (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. P&G. (2020a). Equality. Justice. Action. Procter & Gamble. Retrieved from https://us.pg.com/blogs/take-on-race/ P&G. (2020b). The look: A story about bias in America. Procter & Gamble. Retrieved from https://us.pg.com/talkaboutbias/ P&G. (2020c). The talk [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPl3hZqFaLM Park, Y. E., & Dodd, M. D. (2017). The historical development of corporate social responsibility as a strategic management function of public relations. In B. R. Brunner (Ed.), The moral compass of public relations (pp. 15 – 27). New York, NY: Routledge. Parker, P. S., & Grimes, D. S. (2009). "Race" and management communication. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 292 – 304). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Pearson, R. (1989). Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the idea of dialogue. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 111 – 131). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. (1896). Pompper, D. (2005). "Difference" in public relations research: A case for introducing critical race theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (2), 139 – 169. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1702_5 Pompper, D. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, sustainability and public relations: Negotiating multiple complex challenges. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Pompper, D. (2020). Public relations' role as diversity advocate: Avoiding microaggressions and nurturing microaffirmations in organizations. PR Journal, 13 (2), 1 – 21. Poole, S. M., Grier, S. A., Thomas, K. D., Sobande, F., Ekpo, A. E., Torres, L. T., ... Henderson, G. R. (2020). Operationalizing critical race theory in the marketplace. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 1 – 17. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), 78 – 92. Pratt, C. B. (2006). Reformulating the emerging theory of corporate social responsibility as good governance. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 249 – 277). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84 (1), 26 – 53. doi: 10.1177/0003122418822335 Ritz, D. (2007). Can corporate personhood be socially responsible? In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 190 – 204). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Roberts-Bowman, S., & Walker, G. (2021). Public relations and corporate communications. In A. Theaker (Ed.), The public relations handbook (pp. 101 – 117). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Roediger, D. R. (2006). Working toward whiteness: How America's immigrants became white: The strange journey from Ellis Island to the suburbs. New York, NY: Hachette UK. Rosenthal, C. (2019). Accounting for slavery: Masters and management. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394. (1886). Sha, B. L. (2018). Editor's essay: Thoughts on theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30 (1–2), 1 – 4. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2018.1472726 Smith, A. (2017, April 5). Pepsi pulls controversial Kendall Jenner ad after outcry. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner-echoes-black-lives-matter-sparks-anger-n742811 Solorzano, D., & Yosso, T. (2000). Toward a critical race theory of Chicana and Chicano education. In C. Martinez, Z. Leonardo, & C. Tejeda (Eds.), Charting new terrains of Chicana (o)/Latina (o) education (pp. 35 – 65). New York, NY: Hampton Press. St. John, B., III. (2017). Public relations and the corporate persona: The rise of the affinitive organization. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Starbucks. (2015, March 17). Race together: Conversation has the power to change hearts and minds. Author. https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2015/race-together-conversation-has-the-power-to-change-hearts-and-minds/ Starbucks. (2018, April 17). Starbucks to close all stores nationwide for racial-bias education on May 29. Author. https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2018/starbucks-to-close-stores-nationwide-for-racial-bias-education-may–29/ Starck, K., & Kruckeberg, D. (2001). Public relations and community: A reconstructed theory revisited. In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 51 – 59). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Striplin, E. F. P. (1997). The Norfolk & Western: A history. Norfolk, VA: Norfolk Southern Corporation. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26 (5), 384 – 398. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106 Tedlow, R. S. (2001). The rise of the American business corporation. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Thomas, R. R. (2001). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68 (2), 107 – 117. U.S. Const., amend. XIV. (n.d.). http://senate.gov/civics/constitution%5fitem/constitution.htm#amdt%5f14%5f(1868) Valdes, F., Culp, J. M., & Harris, A. P. (2002). Introduction: Battles waged, won, and lost: Critical race theory at the turn of the millennium. In F. Valdes, J. M. Culp, & A. P. Harris (Eds.). Philadelphia: Crossroads. Valentini, C., Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (2012). Public relations and community: A persistent covenant. Public Relations Review, 38 (5), 873 – 879. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.06.001 Vardeman, J., & Sebesta, A. (2020). The problem of intersectionality as an approach to digital activism: The women's March on Washington's attempt to unite all women. Journal of Public Relations Research, 32 (1–2), 1 – 23. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2020.1716769 Vardeman-Winter, J., & Tindall, N. T. (2010). Toward an intersectionality theory of public relations. In The Sage handbook of public relations (pp. 223 – 235). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. Vujnovic, M., & Kruckeberg, D. (2017). In the bind between theory and practice: Public relations and ethics of neoliberal global capitalism. In B. Brunner (Ed.), The moral compass of public relations (pp. 135 – 148). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Waymer, D. (2010). Does public relations scholarship have a place in race? In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of public relations (pp. 237 – 260). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Waymer, D., & Heath, R. L. (2015). Critical race and public relations: The case of environmental racism and risk bearer agency. In J. L'Etang, D. McKie, & N. Snow (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical public relations (pp. 313 – 326). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Wilcox, D. L. (2019). Dialogic communication theory in the age of corporate activism: A postmodern perspective. Communication and Media in Asia Pacific (CMAP), 2 (1), 1 – 10. Winkler, A. (2018). We the corporations: How American businesses won their civil rights. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing. Yancy, G. (Ed). (2004). What white looks like: African-American philosophers on the whiteness question. New York, NY: Routledge. Zheng, L. (2020, June 15). We're entering the age of corporate social justice. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2020/06/were-entering-the-age-of-corporate-social-justice Zinn, H. (2010). A people's history of the United States. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

By Nneka Logan

Reported by Author