Communication as a (not) ancillary tool for cultural welfare projects

Author/s Luca Poma
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2022/2 Suppl.
Language Italian Pages 5 P. 121-125 File size 146 KB
DOI 10.3280/WE2022-002-S1011
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The communication of cultural welfare projects - which, with the increasing diffusion of digital platforms 2.0, must include inedited concerns, and requires mastery and specialization in specific languages - accordingly loses its "ancillary" character vis-à-vis the content of the actual projects (a "referring to" in the planning), and instead it takes on a central, substantial and indifferable role, functional to ensuring their successful completion through an adequate involvement of the citizenry, which is the ultimate goal of cultural planning.

Keywords: Cultural welfare; Welfare projects; Communication; Digital; Stakeholder engagement; Citizen empowerment; Reporting.

  1. Ang S.H. and Wight M-M. (2009). Building Intangible Resources: The Stickiness of Reputation. Corporate reputation Review, 12(1): 21-32.
  2. Brioschi A. e Uslenghi A. (2009). White Space: comunicazione non convenzionale. Milano: Egea Editrice.
  3. Cloninger C.R. (2004). Feeling Good: the Science of Well-Being. Oxford University Press.
  4. Cuomo M.T., Tortora D. e Metallo G. (2013). Misurare il contributo della comunicazione alla corporate reputation per la creazione di valore. Sinergie, 90: 168.
  5. Eccles G.R., Ioannou I. and Serafeim G. (2012). The impact of corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance. Harvard Business School.
  6. Grunig J. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: past, present, and future. In: R.L. Heath, Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 11-30.
  7. Lampagnano S.P. (2016). Digital reputation management. Milano: Maggioli Editore (Apogeo).
  8. Morin E. (1993). Introduzione al pensiero complesso. Milano: Sperling & Kupfer.
  9. Muzi Falconi T. (2003). Governare le relazioni. Obiettivi, strumenti e modelli delle relazioni pubbliche. Il Sole 24Ore.
  10. Poma L. (2019). Strumenti innovativi per la mappatura degli stakeholder e per la rendicontazione integrata, XIX° convegno International Marketing Trends Conference, gennaio.
  11. Poma L. e Grandoni G (2021). Il reputation management spiegato semplice. Torino: Celid Edizioni.
  12. Romenti S. (2005). Valutare i risultati della comunicazione. Modelli e strumenti per misurare la qualità delle relazioni e della reputazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  13. Romiti S. (2008). Corporate governance e reputazione: dallo stakeholder relationship management allo stakeholder engagement. Impresa Progetto, 2.
  14. Salovey P. and Sluyter D.J., a cura di (1997). Emotional development and Emotional Intelligence: educational implications. New York: Basic Books.
  15. Vecchiato G. (2003). Relazioni pubbliche e comunicazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  16. Vicari S. (1995). Verso il Resource-Based Management. In: Vicari S., a cura di, Brand Equity. Il potenziale generativo della fiducia. Milano: Egea.

Luca Poma, La comunicazione come strumento (non) ancillare ai progetti di Welfare culturale in "WELFARE E ERGONOMIA" 2 Suppl./2022, pp 121-125, DOI: 10.3280/WE2022-002-S1011