NTUC First Campus's Social Responsibility Communication in the Context of Early Childhood Education Singapore

Chandra Satya Bintara; Rohma Siti Nur Zannah; Ahmad Hardiyan; Prayudi Prayudi

doi:10.24256/tunascendekia.v8i2.12922

Authors

Chandra Satya Bintara Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9085-1211
Rohma Siti Nur Zannah Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Ahmad Hardiyan Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Prayudi Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24256/tunascendekia.v8i2.12922

Keywords:

social responsibility communication, stakeholder, Early Childhood Education, social enterprise

Abstract

This study examines how social responsibility is communicated by NTUC First Campus (NFC), a social enterprise operating in Singapore's early childhood education (ECE) sector, through its 2025 Annual Report. The study responds to a gap in ECE literature regarding how early childhood service providers communicate social accountability to a layered stakeholder ecosystem comprising children, families, educators, regulators, educational institutions, and the professional community. Drawing on Morsing and Schultz's (2006) three stakeholder communication strategies: information, response, and involvement -as descriptive analytical tools, this study employs a qualitative descriptive approach with a document analysis design. The primary data source was NFC's 2025 Annual Report, purposively selected. Findings show stakeholder information as the most dominant form, spread across data on service reach, child and family support, sector contribution, and external recognition. Stakeholder response is represented minimally, limited to two data points: one quantitative parent-satisfaction indicator and one qualitative phrase, both without process explanation. Stakeholder involvement appears in different gradations depending on the type of partner: more explicit at the programme-development level with non-regulatory partners, as seen in the co-design of ZooSchool with Mandai Wildlife Group, co-developed training courses with polytechnics, and a leadership programme co-designed with a university; and more implicit in partnerships with the regulator, as seen in the Attendance Support Initiative with the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), and in participation in professional sector forums. This study contributes to understanding social accountability practice in the ECE sector by demonstrating that the stakeholder involvement category is not homogeneous but varies by partner type, and that programme-level stakeholder involvement is not automatically equivalent to involvement in organizational communication processes.

References

Acuti, D., Glozer, S., & Crane, A. (2024). What is (and is not) stakeholder dialogue in CSR? A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 26(4), 518–535.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079

Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. 8(1), 397–441.

Berry, F. S. (2019). Policy Design and Achieving Social Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Social Enterprise Policy. 00, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13111

Borisova, I., Prouty, R., Lin, H.-C., Kelly, D., Strecker, M., & Le Mottee, S. (2019). A World Ready to Learn: Prioritizing Quality Early Childhood Education. Global Report. UNICEF.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Experiments by Nature & Design. Cambrige.

Bruder, I. (2021). A social mission is not enough: Reflecting the normative foundations of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 174(3), 487–505.

Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). It ’ s good to talk ? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. 15(2), 154–170.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility : Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders Wp. 39–48.

Choo, K. K. (2010). The Shaping of Childcare and Preschool Education in Singapore : From Separatism to Collaboration. 4(1), 23–34.

Conte, F., Covucci, C., & Siano, A. (2020). Corporate social responsibility penetration , explicitness , and symbolic communication practices in Asia : A national business system exploration of leading firms in sustainability. December 2019, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1895

Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching Corporate Social Responsibility Communication : Themes , Opportunities and Challenges. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12196

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined : an Analysis of 37 Definitions. 13(November 2006), 1–13.

Dees, J. G. (2018). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. In Case studies in social entrepreneurship and sustainability (pp. 22–30). Routledge.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.

Dhanesh, G. S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility ( CSR ) in India : A dialectical analysis of the communicative construction of the meanings and boundaries of CSR in India. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X15609393

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility ( CSR ): The Role of CSR Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x

Epstein, J. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. ADOLESCENCE-SAN DIEGO-, 37, 435.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Marshfield, MA: Pitman). FreemanStrategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach.

Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2014). Business Ethics : A European Review Critical points of CSR-related stakeholder dialogue in practice. 23(3), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12049

Golob, U., Podnar, K., Elving, W. J., Ellerup, A., Christa, N., Friederike, T., & Schultz, F. (2013). CSR communication : quo vadis ? https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319472

Grace, Y., Tao, W., & Rim, H. (2020). Mapping corporate social responsibility research in communication : A network and bibliometric analysis. Public Relations Review, 46(5), 101963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101963

Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder Engagement : Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility. 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y

Kambouri, M., Wilson, T., Pieridou, M., Flannery, S., & Jie, Q. (2022). Making Partnerships Work : Proposing a Model to Support Parent ‑ Practitioner Partnerships in the Early Years. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(4), 639–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01181-6

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. 28, 21–37.

Lyon, F., & Fernandez, H. (2012). Strategies for scaling up social enterprise : lessons from early years providers. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611211226593

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing : An Integrative Framework.

Mair, J., & Martı, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research : A source of explanation , prediction , and delight. 41, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002

Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication : stakeholder information , response and involvement strategies. 15(4), 323–338.

Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Neilsen, K. U. (2008). The ‘ Catch 22 ’ of communicating CSR : Findings from a Danish study. 14(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856608

Murphy, C., Matthews, J., Clayton, O., & Cann, W. (2021). Partnership with families in early childhood education : Exploratory study. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939120979067

Noland, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 39–49.

NTUC First Campus. (2026). NTUC First Campus Report. Www.Ntucfirstcampus.Com. https://www.ntucfirstcampus.com/?swp_form%5Bform_id%5D=3&swps=REPORT

OECD. (2021). Starting Strong VI (Supporting Meaningful Interaction in Early Childhood Education and Care).

Powell, D. R., Son, S., File, N., & San, R. R. (2010). Parent – school relationships and children ’ s academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 48(4), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.03.002

Rey-Guerra, C., Maldonado-Carreño, C., Ponguta, L. A., Nieto, A. M., & Yoshikawa, H. (2022). Family engagement in early learning opportunities at home and in early childhood education centers in Colombia. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 58, 35–46.

Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Carolyn, P., Bovaird, J. A., & Kupzyk, K. A. (2010). Early Education and Development Parent Engagement and School Readiness : Effects of the Getting Ready Intervention on Preschool Children ’ s Social – Emotional Competencies. October. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280902783517

Song, B., & Wen, J. T. (2019). Online corporate social responsibility communication strategies and stakeholder engagements : A comparison of controversial versus noncontroversial industries. November 2018, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1852

Stocker, F., Arruda, M. P. De, & Boaventura, M. G. (2020). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting : A classification model. March, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1947