1
Master Business Administration – Strategy
University of Amsterdam – Faculty of Economics and Business
In search of a pattern – the relationship between CSR Credibility Enhancing Strategies and CSR
Development Stages
By
Dennis J. Eijpe
Student 10121552
Supervisor M.Sc. Lars Moratis
March, 2015
Abstract
The relationship between CSR development stages and CSR credibility enhancing strategies was studied. Sixty Dutch organizations’ self-assessments of ISO26000 and their sustainability reports were analyzed and processed by the use of statistical program SPSS. The findings showed support for
a positive relationship between CSR stage development and CSR credibility enhancing strategies.
Furthermore, the level of transparency of the self-assessments has a negative relationship with CSR
stage development and CSR credibility enhancing strategies. More findings and the implications are
2
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Dennis J. Eijpe who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 1
Table of Contents ... 2
1. Introduction ... 4
1.2 Academic and Practical relevance ... 10
2. Theory ... 11
2.1 Introduction to theory ... 11
2.2 CSR development stage ... 14
2.2.1 In general ... 14
2.2.2 CSR evolution model ... 15
2.2.3 Seven-Staged CSR Development Model ... 17
2.2.4 Waves of sustainability ... 21
2.2.5 CSR stage development conclusion ... 24
2.3 CSR credibility strategies ... 26
2.3.1 CSR credibility strategies in general ... 26
2.3.2 Strategy types ... 27
2.3.3 Internal strategies ... 28
2.3.4 External strategies ... 30
2.3.5 CSR credibility strategies combined ... 32
2.4 Transparency ... 33
2.5 Blending the theory ... 34
3
3.1 Research Design ... 36
3.2 Determining Empirical Data ... 41
3.3 Data analyzing tactics ... 42
4 Results ... 43
4.1 Descriptive Statistics ... 43
4.2 Research specific results... 46
4.2.1 Results Hypothesis 1 ... 46 4.2.1.1 In-depth results ... 47 4.2.2 Results Hypothesis 2 ... 47 4.2.2.1 In-depth results ... 48 4.2.3 Results Hypothesis 3 ... 48 4.2.3.1 In-depth results ... 49 4.2.4 Results Hypothesis 4 ... 50 4.2.4.1 In-depth results ... 50 4.2.5 Results Hypothesis 5 ... 50 4.2.6 Results Hypothesis 6 ... 51 4.2.6.1 In-depth results ... 51 4.2.7 Results Hypothesis 7 ... 52 4.2.7.1 In-depth results ... 53 5 Discussion ... 53
5.1 Answering the research question ... 53
5.2 Major findings ... 53 5.2.1 Major finding 1 ... 54 5.2.2 Major finding 2 ... 55 5.2.3 Major finding 3 ... 56 5.2.4 Major finding 4 ... 57 5.3 Unexpected findings ... 60 5.3.1 Unexpected finding 1 ... 60 5.3.2 Unexpected finding 2 ... 61 5.3.3 Unexpected finding 3 ... 61 5.5 Implications ... 62 5.5.1 Theoretical implications ... 62 5.5.2 Practical implications ... 65 5.6 Limitations ... 66 5.7 Future research ... 67 6 Conclusion ... 68
4
References ... 72 Appendix 1: Table of gathered data (organization name, CSR development stage, CSR credibility
strategy, transparency options) ... 76 Appendix 2: Data recoded (deducted from appendix 1) ... 78
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction to the theory
Corporate social responsibility (CSR), “actions that business and corporations voluntarily undertake
both to promote social and environmental goals and to minimize any potential social and environmental costs associated with their business activities” (Clapp & Rowlands, 2014), has
become more important since the 21 century because it is now used as the mainstream prescription by businesses and governments for fighting social and environmental issues (Doane & Albasta-Vilaplana, 2005; Muller et al., 2014). CSR is used by organizations to determine their social and ethical standards in their businesses, which thrives to build trust, drive engagement, and innovation in a way different than without CSR (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). CSR is an important way for
businesses to enable reputation growth and help their brand rise up the sustainable ladder (Melo & Galan, 2011; Minor & Morgan, 2011). A better of reputation and brand imagewill help an
organization with thriving in the future as sustainability is more and more a topic of interest these days (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Melo & Galan, 2011; Serenko & Bontis, 2009; Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009).
Dahlsrud (2008) shows that a definition of CSR is unclear due to the many different definitions available in literature and because CSR must be seen as a phenomenon that differs depending on the context, but should include at least the following dimensions: the stakeholder dimension, the social dimension, the economic dimension, the voluntariness dimension and the
environmental dimension. CSR can thus be seen as a complex and multidimensional conceptthat is
5
Lee, 2005). Due to the complexity of CSR, it is important for organizations that their stakeholders perceive their CSR efforts as credible. Organizations can use CSR credibility enhancing strategies to help them with achieving this (Moratis, 2014). Therefore, an organization should have a CSR
credibility strategy, which is a strategy formulated by the organization to enhance the credibility of CSR claims made by the organization (ibid). This allows customers to perceive their CSR
contributions as credible (ibid), which is often confused with the stakeholder approach (Freeman, 1984). By implementing such a strategy, organizations try to reduce the credibility gap (Globescan, 2012). The credibility gap can be seen as an extension to public skepticism about the truth of statements organizations make or, in other words: a lack of confidence and trust of the public in statements that organizations make regarding their CSR commitments and performance (Kazoleas & Teven, 2009; Stuart, 2011).
CSR becomes even more complex when the concept of “greenwashing” interferes with CRS credibility enhancing strategies (Furlow, 2010; Laufer, 2003). Greenwashing means that an
organization tries to sell its business as social responsible and caring for others, while their motive for using CSR in their strategy is mainly concerned with the financial benefits it brings forth (Furlow, 2010; Laufer, 2003). Although Friedman (1970) argues that the social responsibility of ann
organization is to increase its profits, Laufer (2003) warns for the social accountability of greenwashing and argues that it could lead to damages in the credibility of the organization. According to Furlow (2010), there are many large organizations greenwashing their businesses in order to promote their use of CSR but also to increase their profit. Donaldson (1996) states that putting efforts in CSR just to reap the profits of it is wrong and should not be tolerated. The
contradiction shows the need to further investigate the issue of CSR. An organization that uses CSR credibility strategies for a longer period of time will have the advantage of being more able to
counteract consumer skepticism in times of crisis compared to organizations who just started working on their CSR strategies (Elving, 2012; Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009).
6
The relevance of investing in CSR is further explained by Aguinis and Glavas (2012) in their article “What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility”. It is stated that CSR improves an organization’s reputation and therefore organization’s performance (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Sully de Luque, Washburn, Waltman & House; 2008). The article also states that customers play an important role in relationship with CSR-outcomes (Ellen et al., 2010). It is also suggested that organizations that engage in CSR are doing that with the primary reason of financial benefits,
although some organizations try to do the right thing. As explained previously, greenwashing makes CSR more difficult due to the difficulty in the perception of greenwashing. It might be hard to discover the true meanings of an organization that does not disclose all of its ethical practices. Therefore transparency could play a crucial role in taking away different perceptions of greenwashing and in this way enhance the credibility of CSR claims (Furlow, 2010). The contradiction between CSR efforts and the greenwashing dilemma shows the need to further investigate the issue of CSR to make it more worthwhile for organizations that put effort in
protecting the interest of the society. Organization’s CSR credibility statements might not reflect the reality as in how much effort and care they put into their CSR strategy. Knowing that customers, who care for all the different dimensions CSR is about (Dahlsrud, 2008), or some of them, tell us that they want to do business with organizations truly reflecting their CSR statements and not with those just playing the game for financial benefits (Forehand, 2003). This vision is also supported by Kouzes and Posner (2011) who state that people will now follow you, trust you, if you as an organization do now fully believe in what you are doing, in this case putting effort in CSR. This paragraph highlights the importance of mapping organizations’ CSR efforts to award those organizations that deserve it with credibility by stakeholders and so helping the world become a better place.
Since CSR is essentially all about a sustainable future (Clapp & Rowlands, 2014), people should start by trying to understand and provide the institutions to support the businesses that provide a social return on investment, beyond mere financial profit (Doane, 2005). These people and
7
institutions have to identify businesses that provide a social return on investment, beyond the financial motives, which has proven to be fairly difficult (Furlow, 2010). This study helps these institutions and people by identifying and mapping CSR efforts organizations make. A good way to do so is by using CSR standards as a measure point for CSR activities conducted by organizations (Moratis, 2014). There are several CSR standards to be found in the business environment and the numbers are growing recently (Moratis, 2014; Rasche & Maclean, 2013). CSR standards are a means to increase the credibility CSR claims because organizations using CSR standards are seen to be more transparent in their business operations and therefore receive more credibility from stakeholders (Alshahrani, 2014). CSR standards support organizations with managing their CSR credibility
strategy in a more systematic way that is more accessible (Maon et al., 2009; Mueller et al., 2009). One could say that a standard functions as part of a strategy to provide general knowledge to the employees that deal with the CSR credibility of the organization while also carrying a legitimizing function that benefits organizations’ credibility claims (Pflugrath, 2011; Moratis, 2014). Furthermore, the increase in CSR efforts motivates employees to be more committed to their work which could lead to an increase in productivity (Collier & Esteban, 2007).
The most recent standard is the ISO26000. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) provides consensus for international and national CSR issues organizations face (Dahlsrud, 2008). Core to the ISO26000 is the fact that it is compatible with all types of organizations,
irrespective of size and CSR development stage, and it helps with the operationalization and even the implementation of CSR (ISO, 2010). Due to the fact that the ISO26000 is not certifiable, the Dutch organization named NEN started an initiative called ‘publication platform’, which is a website that for example allows organizations to publicize their ISO26000 in another way, namely via
self-assessments (NEN, 2014). The self-self-assessments of ISO26000 are designed to enable organizations to show their CSR efforts in a standard template to their stakeholders (Boon, 2014). NEN only plays a facilitating role in this (Boon, 2014). The publication platform allows organizations to choose from
8
three types of formats to be publicized, option 1, 2 or 3. The difference in options consists of the level of transparency an organization wishes to publish with option 1 being the most (NEN, 2014).
The use of self-assessments to publicize ISO26000 standards in a different way is unique for the Netherlands as few other countries are doing this so far (NEN, 2014). It could be important to know if a certain level of transparency is consistent with certain CSR credibility strategies or CSR development stages. If a correlation can be found between these factors, stakeholders can
immediately tell by the level of transparency an organization uses in what CSR development stage they are and what CSR credibility strategies they are using. This could reduce efforts in analyzing business opportunities and in identifying sources for durable goods and could thus be convenient for many organizations that are involved or will be involved in doing business with the organizations using these kind of transparency levels. Also, since a CSR credibility strategy of transparency could be any of the three transparency levels as described, the level of transparency could have its own relationship with CSR development stages and CSR credibility strategies. Therefore, the level of transparency is not seen solely as a CSR development strategy but as an individual factor trying to explain part of the relationship between CSR development stage and CSR credibility strategy. By doing so, a connection between multiple variables is being made to show if some could indicate others.
Another important feature in CSR is that the organizational efforts towards CSR can vary, indicating that organizations can be in different CSR development stages (Maon, 2010). A CSR development stage indicates the level of effort an organization has put in its CSR practices (ibid). Hence that an organization could just get started with implementing CSR practices but could also be doing it for years (ibid). The CSR stage of an organization could be mutually linked with the CSR credibility strategies it operates because CSR development stages could influence the use of certain CSR credibility strategies as organizations might feel more ready for certain strategies as the
9
different CSR credibility strategies, and vice versa, indicating that there could be a pattern to discover between the variables. The former identifies a gap which has not yet been researched, namely:
The use of CSR credibility strategies in different CSR development stages.
This study tries to explain the relationship between the CSR development stage and the CSR credibility strategy (strategies) used, moderated by transparency. This study seeks patterns between CSR strategies, development stages and transparency which could be important to know for further understanding of CSR and how organizations conduct CSR. Besides this, this study will also try to link certain CSR development stages, CSR credibility strategies used and transparency levels to see what the relationship between the three factors is. This could be interesting to know for organizations and stakeholders to identify CSR problems and opportunities. The research question is therefore as followed:
To what extent do the CSR development stages relate to the CSR credibility enhancing strategies and what is the role of the level of transparency in this relationship?
The following sub-questions are formed to help answering the research question as described above:
(1) Which CSR development stages can be identified?
(2) Which CSR credibility enhancing strategies can be identified?
(3) Does a higher CSR development stage reflect more CSR credibility enhancing strategies
used?
(4) Does a higher level of transparency lead to the use of more CSR credibility enhancing
strategies?
(5) Are certain CSR credibility enhancing strategies especially used when the organization is
10
(6) Is there a relationship between the CSR development stage and the type of transparency
option used in their CSR reports?
1.2 Academic and Practical relevance
The most important contribution is showing ways how to improve the credibility of CSR claims. This study provides a good overview of the type of organizations that use certain CSR credibility
strategies defined by the taxonomy of Moratis (2014), which gives insight for management on how they should alter their strategy to make it more credible towards the stakeholders based on the CSR development stage positioned in or the level of transparency as reflected in their sustainability reports. Another important contribution of this study is that it gives insight and tries to give an answer on how organizations try to reduce the CSR credibility gap (Globescan, 2012). This allows CSR managers to adjust their CSR strategy to close the credibility gap between what they think is credible and what is perceived as credible (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore & Hill; 2006). Furthermore, this study tries to show managers that having a CSR strategy, which is not focused on financial benefits but for social responsibility reasons, affects customers’ perception of the organization. This could change their reputation in a positive way if a higher financial performance is achieved by performing CSR efforts and therefore lead to an enhancement in organizational performance (Deephouse & Carter, 2005; Qian, 2012).
This study will first analyze the literature in an empirical way. In the same chapter (2), this study will use several theories to form hypotheses to be able and give answers to the research
question. After explaining the theories, the study continues by describing the methodology, followed by the results. The results are then discussed in the discussion chapter followed by the conclusion chapter. This empirical study is conducted both qualitatively as quantitatively, using the statistical program SPSS for it’s in depth analysis of the gathered data.
11
2. Theory
2.1 Introduction to theory
This chapter discusses the literature review and the theories used to develop the hypotheses. A research framework at the end of this chapter will summarize the theory discussed. This study investigates why organizations use different CSR credibility strategies at several CSR development stages and how transparency moderates this relationship. The focus will first be on credibility and how to achieve credibility via CSR standards. Next, the subject will switch from CSR standards to the CSR development stages, followed by CSR credibility strategies and transparency in CSR reports.
Before further introducing the theory, I would like to point out the difference existing between certification and self-assessments. This study only deals with self-assessments, which are statements based on the organization’s own determination of, in this study’s case, how social responsible their current business is (Bendell, 2005; Boon, 2014). In contrary to certifications which are written statements or assurances that an organization meets the requirements for that certificate. This process is performed by a third party eligible for giving certificates (Moratis, 2014).
There are all kinds of CSR standards that could influence an organization’s CSR claims (Maon et al., 2009; Moratis, 2014; Mueller et al., 2009; Pflugrath, 2011). There is an increasing number of CSR strategies in the business environment, indicating the growing relevance of CSR in doing business (Moratis, 2014). The most important reason for this is that CSR standards support organizations with managing their CSR credibility strategy in a more systematic way that is more accessible (Maon et al., 2009; Mueller et al., 2009). A CSR standard functions as a strategy to provide general knowledge to the employees that deal with the CSR credibility of the organization and it also carries a legitimizing function that benefits the organization’s credibility claims
12
Another important feature of the ISO26000 is that it allows organizations to change its environmental management systems into integrated sustainability management systems, which no standard ever provided guidance for (Pojasek, 2011). According to Pojasek (2011), this change in management systems can make or better the corporate responsibility and sustainability programs. By doing so, an organization’s CSR credibility might increase which allows stakeholders to perceive the organization’s CSR credibility claim as more credible than before (Pojasek, 2011). Though,
implementing such a CSR standard is not easy and has many bottlenecks along the way: there might be too little knowledge about CSR, too little knowledge about the CSR implementation process, unclear roadmaps of how to achieve the desired results, difficulties to get support from the
management and too little time available (Moratis & Cochius, 2010). Organizations must be aware of these bottlenecks and overcome them in order for the CSR efforts to be successful and to achieve synergy with other business aspects (Moratis & Cochius, 2010; MIT Sloan & BCG, 2013). This synergy or “shared value” could lead to an increase in innovation and thereby increasing the competitive position of the organization (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Porter & Kramer, 2011).
The first variable that is under discussion is the CSR development stage. CSR development measures how well an organization is using its internal capabilities to its societal issues (Maon, Lindgreen & Swaen; 2010). These gradual steps need to be integrated in the business model and processes in order to achieve successful CSR development, indicating that CSR is beneficial to the organization (Dunhphy, Griffiths & Benn, 2003; Mirvis & Googins, 2006; Zadek, 2004). There are several types of CSR development steps, or stages, as described by the literature. One variant of the CSR development stages is reflected in the work of Visser (2010). He recognized the following steps as development stages; defensive, charitable, promotional, strategic and systemic. However, many other researchers do not agree with this view of the CSR development stages but believe that organizational culture is key for the development of CSR (Maon et al, 2010). As Maon et al. (2010) describes, CSR development recognizes seven stages divided over three CSR cultural phases. The
13
first CSR cultural phase is CSR Cultural Reluctance, to which the Dismissing stage is connected. The second CSR cultural phase is CSR Cultural Grasp, connected to the Self-protecting, compliance-seeking and Capability-compliance-seeking stages of CSR development (Maon et al, 2010). The final CSR cultural phase is that of CSR Cultural Embedment, connected to the Caring, Strategizing and
Transforming stages of CSR development (Maon et al, 2010). Due to the more widely accepted stage model of Maon compared to Visser (number of citations), the CSR development stage model of Maon et al. (2010) is chosen to work with in this paper. Depending on the CSR development stage, an organization could chose to implement different CSR credibility strategies based on the perception it would give to external stakeholders at those different stages (Maon et al, 2009 & 2010).
The second variable that will be discussed in this chapter is CSR credibility strategies. CSR credibility strategies and CSR standards being used all over the world. Since this study is focused on organizations that use ISO26000 with self-assessments as a standard, a taxonomy of ISO26000-self-assessed-derived strategies for enhancing the credibility of CSR claims are used (Moratis, 2014). The taxonomy consists of credibility by engagement, dialogue, association, partnering, transparency, third party judgment, and by materiality or focus. Engagement is an important way of showing the level of mutual trust and confidence that the interests of all parties are understood (Kazoleas & Teeven, 2009; Moratis, 2014). This can be done by dialogue or association among stakeholders. Partnering with NGO’s is what some organizations that use ISO26000 do to enhance their credibility claim. Credibility by transparency is an important topic within the ISO26000 and is based on
communicating dilemmas, choices and performance. By showing that an organization adheres to certain standards and operates in accordance to them, third party judgment offers transparency regarding its CSR performance. Credibility by materiality or focus allows organizations to enhance their credibility by committing their selves to material impacts, taking appropriate and focused action and performance assessing and reporting on progress and shortcomings in applicable ways (Moratis, 2014).
14
The final variable included in this study is transparency. This will be discussed after the method section to help determine empirical material, the disclosure options of the ISO26000 self-assessment (transparency option 1, 2, or 3). Transparency is important because the level of transparency an organization is willing to show in its self-assessment, brought out based on the ISO26000, might reflect the development stage they are in or will be in on short-term which then further relates to the type of CSR credibility strategy used. The CSR-development stage an
organization is in could determine the kind of strategy they use for their overall CSR efforts because they might have to learn and improve on their strategy as the years pass. Experience and the learning curve could play a role in this (Malik & Goyal, 2013).
2.2 CSR development stage
2.2.1 In general
CSR development stages could be stages varying from organizations that just started implementing
CSR developments to organizations that are experienced with CSR practices. Most of the time
organizations are not consciously aware of why and where they are in the CSR development stage.
Some organizations though, choose to implement different CSR credibility strategies based on the
perception it would give to external stakeholders at those different stages (Maon, 2010). This is why
the development stages are tested, to try and see whether there is a relationship with CSR credibility
strategies. Do the organizations choose for a CSR credibility strategy based on where they are
positioned in the CSR development stage? Further information of blended items (credibility strategy
& development stage) is shown in section 2.4, blending the theory.
Organizations used to have other CSR reasons in the old days than in the modern days. One of
the old models was a five step model reflecting how CSR used to be seen as it described several
possible CSR snapshot organizations could be positioned in. The positions are Defensive, Charitable,
15
was seen in the old days to reflect it with the modern days of CSR development stages, in this case
the model of Maon et al. (2010). Visser (2010) however, chose to describe the evolution of the CSR
concept to show the maturing of CSR over time instead of appointing CSR development stages,
which is quite interesting for a research point of view. According to Visser (2010), CSR used to be
about value creation, good governance, societal contribution and environmental integrity. This
chapter will firstly explain the CSR evolution as described by Visser (2010) to bring some sort of
evolutional awareness concerning CSR which could be important for analyzing data correctly.
Second, the model of Maon et al. (2010) will be explained. Thirdly, Benn’s, Dunphy’s and Griffiths’
(2014) model of “waves of sustainability” will be explained to gain further insights into CSR stage
development organizations face.
2.2.2 CSR evolution model
As already mentioned, Visser’s (2010) CSR evolution model consists of five positions in time which can be seen as development steps of how CSR evolved. The first so called position in CSR evolution
is Defensive CSR, which stems from the age of greed in which all CSR practices were undertaken
only if shareholder value was protected as a result of CSR. Examples of this are employee volunteer
programs (motivation, commitment and productivity) and costs to avoid problems (fines and
penalties) (Visser, 2010). The main stakeholder targets in the first development stage are
shareholders, the government and employees enabled by investments only.
The second position in CSR evolution is Charitable CSR. Charitable CSR was introduced first
in the age of philanthropy where not the financial benefits are weighted most in decision-making in
the trend of CSR, but empowering communities or civil society organizations (CSOs) is focused
upon. The vision of CSR of the age of greed transitioned into one where organizations support social
16
The third position in CSR evolution in the old model is Promotional CSR and was stems from
the age of marketing where CSR initiatives where launched to stimulate brand recognition and
upgrade the image and reputation of the organization (Visser, 2010). This stage of CSR is mainly
concerned about public relations and therefore targets the general public via the media to promote the
product or service the organization is offering.
The fourth position in the old CSR evolution model is Strategic CSR. Strategic CSR emerges
from the age of management where social and environmental management systems are used to target
shareholders, NGOs and CSOs. It basically means that the organization tries to relate their CSR
initiatives with their core capabilities via CSR policy development, goal setting, and the
implementation of programs, auditing and reporting. Strategic CSR focuses on the micro level,
meaning that organizations in this stage do not necessarily change their strategy based on social or
environmental issues but rather try to align the issues with the organization’s strategy (Visser, 2010).
The last position in CSR evolution is Systemic CSR. An organization finds itself in this stage
if it is focusing on the identification and tackling of root problems that caused the unsustainability or
irresponsibility, by means of renewing or upgrading business models, processes, products and
services while also lobbying for policies concerning CSR (national and international)(Visser, 2010).
In this stage the organization targets regulators and customers. In the contrary of strategic CSR,
systemic CSR focuses on the understanding of interconnections in the macro level system and the
way an organization’s strategy needs to change in order to optimize the outcomes for the larger
system (Society, communities, economies and ecologies). Clearly there is a structure of improvement
in these stages in the sense of time and quality performance of the organizations, but it are merely
still ways of achieving more financial benefits, like a quality culture (Wu, Zhang & Schroeder;
2011).
Visser (2010) recognized the DNA of modern CSR looks quite different than that of old CSR
17
demands of the public. The new DNA reflects corporate sustainability as well as responsibility. The
purpose of business is no longer to be profitable focusing on shareholder value only, but to serve
society by means of bringing high quality products and services to the world that enhance the
wellbeing of the society without ecological and community life-support systems fading grey (Visser,
2010). The DNA described here is concerned with the design and implementation of a sustainable en
responsible business model, which is supported by good financial and economic systems to smoothen
the process of creating a better world (Andersen, 2009). Sustainable development might not only be
profitable for the organization, but for the society and environment as well (Elkington, 1994). That is
what makes CSR 2.0 so important. So there was already knowledge of the fact that the old CSR
model would not fit the current environment anymore, leading to the more widely acceptance of
Maon’s et al. (2010) model.
2.2.3 Seven-Staged CSR Development Model
Maon et al. (2010) describes the seven-staged CSR development model as an integration of the CSR
Cultural Phase, Stage of CSR Development, CSR View and Prominence in Organizational Culture
and several Dimensions of CSR Development. Integration of these aspects in CSR stage development
is needed because the state of an organization’s CSR development reflects some distinctive cultural,
moral, strategic and organizational features (ibid; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). At the cultural and
moral features, the CSR development goes through three phases: CSR Cultural reluctance phase,
CSR Cultural Grasp Phase and CSR Cultural embedment phase (Maon et al., 2010). These three CSR
cultural phases reflect the distinct development stages, which in turn reflect the strategic and
organizational features of the organization’s CSR development. The first cultural phase (reluctance) reflects the dismissing stage, the second cultural phase (grasp) reflects a self-protecting stage, a
compliance-seeking stage and a capability-seeking stage, and the third cultural phase (embedment)
18
In the CSR cultural reluctance phase, CSR is most of the time ignored or used only in terms
of necessity (Maon et al., 2010). This phase is all about short term self-interest at the corporate level,
where the focus is on averting constraints and winning at all costs, which indicates that the
organization might ignore social and environmental impact of its businesses that constrain their
profitability despite any external criticisms, called egoism stakeholder culture (Jones, 2007; Maon et
al., 2010). The lack of motivation for CSR development and the lack of CSR related actions or
initiatives causes the organization to adopt a non-caring position towards its external environment
and causes the relationships with stakeholders to be essentially constitutional (ibid).
The second cultural phase is that of cultural grasp, indicating a change in the way
organizations are making efforts to undertake some preform of CSR (Maon et al., 2010). This is the
phase where the sensitivity to CSR actions arises and the acknowledgement of CSR rationale is
founded. The foremost reason for organizations that find themselves in the cultural phase is that of
value protection. The short term self-interest view of the reluctance phase changes in this phase into a
more long term view where CSR issues play an increasingly important role in protecting organization
value (Maon et al., 2010). Though, it must be stated that the organization is in this phase still quite
self-regarding but have a vision that involves stakeholders and recognized their usefulness more than
before (ibid).
This cultural phase is firstly linked with the self-protecting stage of CSR development.
During this stage, the organization undergo too little CSR activities as a result of a lack of awareness
for CSR-linked issues (Maon et al., 2010). This lack of awareness is caused by a low level of
involvement of CSR among top management and the non-existence of a CSR aspiration, leading to a
denial of accusations concerning harmful activities (Maon et al., 2010; Zadek, 2004). In summary,
CSR is only of marginal importance to the organization in this stage.
Next is the compliance-seeking stage, which indicates that organizations start to be more
19
start up regulatory frameworks and try to keep up with the industry standards concerning CSR. Due
to the development of policies (environmental, health and safety guidelines), organizations reduce the
risk of sanctions, but maintain a defensive stance towards CSR because they do not develop an
interactive relationship with stakeholders but only do what they have to do to oblige to the bare
minimum of industry standards (Maon et al., 2010).
The following stage with an increase in CSR management is the capability-seeking stage, the
last stage associated with the CSR cultural grasp phase. This stage is concerned with organizations
opening their selves to new categories of stakeholders and the more developed skills in CSR basics to
ensure business survival (Maon et al., 2010). Especially profitable CSR initiatives or reputation
enhancing CSR initiatives are supported by the organization in this stage (Van Marrewijk & Werre,
2003). Stakeholder relationship management becomes more important in this stage leading to CSR
getting more and more important in the organization’s values and beliefs (Maon et al., 2013).
The last CSR cultural embedment phase an organization can be located in is all about
gathering knowledge of CSR, strengthening the relationships with stakeholders and the proactive
addressing of CSR-related issues by mobilizing internal resources for this manner (Maon et al.,
2010). At this phase, CSR is recognized as a potential value creator and the self-regarding view of the
organization changes in other-regarding, indicating a change in CSR policies and activities that
switch from short-term result based (value protection) to long-term result (value creation) (Lindgreen
& Wynstra, 2005). Organizations start collaborations with stakeholders and develop a culturally
integrated approach to CSR to make the most of the opportunities they get and create value through
these joint processes and innovations with stakeholders (Maon et al., 2010). Due to the fact that
organizations now see CSR as an opportunity instead of a threat that needs to be controlled, a
different way of doing business is needed indicating that there needs to be acknowledgement about
the importance of the links between CSR and business innovation (key element in CSR development
20
sustainability in terms of supporting product differentiations and resource productivity which is
concerned with the opportunities of new relationships between organizations and the environment (nature, stakeholders, technology), called the “more sustainable age” (Dunphy, Griffiths & Benn; 2014). By doing so, organizations develop creative solutions and initiatives that encompass the core
of business and help make the world more sustainable (Maon et al., 2010).
This long term sustainability is reflected back in the Caring stage of CSR development,
indicating that organizations are more sensible to CSR-related issues than before and understand that
long-term relationships and benefits of CSR processes/programs could potentially benefit the
organization (Maon et al., 2010). This first stage in this phase is concerned with a broader societal
orientation and is more focused on the external environment than all stages before, which leads to
organizations hiring core business managers to coordinate the cross-functional CSR policies and to
develop a balanced viewpoint of economic, social and environmental issues (Maon et al., 2010;
Mirvis & Googins, 2006). Organizations in this stage recognize the importance of making CSR
reports available for public and focus on taking the initiative in stakeholder dialogue (Maon et al.,
2010).
In contrary to the caring stage, the Strategizing stage indicates that CSR has become so
important for the organization that strategy developing is taking this into account (Reidenbach &
Robin, 1991). Organizations in this stage try to be the employer of choice where they construct
innovative initiatives to increase the support of stakeholders (Dunphy et al., 2014). Achieving
community set standards are no longer enough at this stage, the organization tries to find
opportunities that go beyond this in order to achieve not only stakeholder support, but also social,
environmental and economic benefits (Maon et al., 2010).This CSR stage includes organizations that
proactively oriented towards CSR and act in structural formative partnerships to ensure both
21
The final stage of CSR development is the Transforming stage. At this stage all aspects of the
organization are fully integrated with the CSR principles meaning that many CSR values are adopted
to make sure the organization is taking care of human well-being and the ecological sustainability of
the planet next to its financial purposes (Maon et al., 2010). Van Marrewijk and Werre (2003) show that these type of organizations believe in CSR being motivated by the belief that “sustainability is the only initiative” for doing business because everything is mutually interdependent. In the transforming stage, management tries to teach their CSR knowledge to other employees and also
transform their relationships with NGOs for example to more durable ones to address more objective
and actual societal concerns (Mirvis & Googins, 2006; Zadek, 2004). The organizations try to change
the game into a more viable one (Maon et al., 2010).
The next section explains the model of Dunphy (et al., 2014).
2.2.4 Waves of sustainability
Dunphy’s (et al., 2014) model is important because the CSR development stage is an important element for this research and Dunphy’s model gives different insight into CSR stage development as it interests purely in human and ecological sustainability and describes all steps by it which is quite
different from Visser (2010) and Maon (2010), who, respectively, created an evolution model and
integrated cultural phases into a seven staged CSR process. To be able to use the best possible
research set concerning CSR development stages, the best possible outcome in terms of reliability
and reality is achieved.
2.2.4.1 The first wave
Dunphy’s model consists of three stages organizations have to undergo to achieve a sustainable business. The first stage, or “wave” as called by Dunphy, is divided in two key phases that determine that stage’s CSR development, namely: Opposition and Ignorance (Dunphy et al., 2014). Opposition,
22
also seen as rejection, describes that in this phase, organizations commonly have cultures of
exploitation, see employees and the environment as means to an end only, are in constant conflict
with the government and green activists while these organization, on top of that, also see community
claims as illegitimate ones (ibid). To summarize, organizations are not cooperating with these third
parties and do not really care about anything else than themselves, they are destroying values (ibid). The second phase in the first wave of Dunphy’s model (2014), ignorance, has everything to do with limiting the organizations’ own values. In this phase, organizations do not reject the
environment anymore like they did in the opposition phase, but they are non-responsive to anything.
This phase contains organizations that see environmental resources as a good which is free to use,
and is primarily concerned with its financial and technological factors. Organizations in this phase
are ignorant to the outside world, they do not reject the outside world, like in the previous phase but
they simply ignore it, which in the end limits their potentials to create value.
2.2.4.2 The second wave
The second wave of this sustainability model consists of three phases: risk, cost and competitive
advantage (Dunphy et al., 2014). Organizations in this phase focus on reducing the risk for sanctions
by the government and the community so they try to meet the bare minimum legal- and community
standards. While organizations focus on the risk aspect of the business, they commonly have little
integration of HR and the environmental functions, meaning that they see environmental concerns as
unimportant and do not want to waste too much time on problems on that matter. This phase is
however seen as a phase wherein organizations use proactive measures to keep their good image to
the outside world. According to Dunphy (et al., 2014), this phase conserves the values of the
organization indicating that the organizations do just enough to sustain their business in a stable
23
The second phase of the second wave is concerned with cost. In this phase organizations are
concerned with creating value instead of just conserving it (ibid). By doing so, they usually invest in
HR systems to improve productivity and efficiency (Kemp, Stark & Tantrum; 2003). They also
manage the environmental aspect in this phase to avoid cost such as fines or negative media exposure
that could all lead to increased costs.
The third phase in the second wave of sustainability is competitive advantage (CA).
Organizations in this phase are also concerned with creating value, but in particular the strategic
proactivity point of view (Dunphy et al., 2014). Organizations in this phase focus on innovation more
than in they did in other phases, they seek to engage in stakeholder dialogues to innovate products
and processes that are environmentally friendly and accepted by harsh NGOs as well, and they
promote good citizenship so the organization can attract better and more employees to choose from
and retain them for a longer period of time (Kemp et al., 2003). By undertaking such efforts,
organizations seek to create value.
2.2.4.3 The third wave
The third wave of the sustainability model consists of only one phase, transformation. Organizations
that are currently in this phase of CSR development have most probably a sustaining organization
(Dunphy et al., 2014). Organizations in this phase do not focus on one or two things, like before, but
they reform the organization into a self-renewing element of both the society as the ecological
context the organization is positioned in (Kemp et al., 2003). By doing so, the organization
transforms its old competitive advantage position into a more sustainable position which will not
only seek innovation but also nurturing of the communities and environments.
24
2.2.5 CSR stage development conclusion
To conclude this chapter, it must be stated that all models contain something interesting to look after when analyzing organizations’ CSR development stage. As stated by Maon (2010), organizations do not particularly have to follow all stages as described here in his model, but can jump several stages
at a time. It is thinkable that because organizations can be positioned in different stages, they could
also use a different set of CSR credibility strategies that comes along with these different stages they
are in. This could also apply for Dunphy’s model which could lead to organizations jumping from the
ignorance phase to the cost phase for example. This could in practice mean that organizations very
quickly move through the risk phase or that they are positioned in both the risk as the cost phase.
Since the models differ too much and have several different aspects that are worthwhile to take into
account when setting up an analyzing model to analyze the organizations as listed on NEN (2014), a
combination of the models is made. As can be seen in figure 1 below, the model is mainly build on that of Maon’s added with some aspects of Dunphy.
As this seven staged CSR development model of Maon et al. (2010) is too difficult to interpret
25
and to the point, four type of stages will be formed in the new model to compare organizations with
and try to fit them in a box or multiple boxes. From the point of view of Maon’s (2010) model, stage
1 (“Winning at any cost perspective”), as just described, is related to the Reaction Posture (as stated
in figure 1) of the organization, which reflects the opposition and ignorance phase of Dunphy’s
model because similar elements are proclaimed in both of their models (Dunphy et al., 2014; Maon et
al., 2010). Stage 2 (“Reputation & Philanthropy perspective”) and 3 (“Requirements perspective”)
of the new model as presented in figure 1, are identified with the Defence Posture of the
organization. The defence posture reflects the risk and cost phases of Dunphy’s model due to the fact
that similar elements are proclaimed in both of their models. Stage 4 (“Stakeholder management
perspective”) and 5 (“Stakeholder dialogue perspective”) are related to the Accommodation Posture.
The accommodation posture is equivalent to the CA phase as described by Dunphy’s (et al., 2014) model. Stage 6 (“Sustainability perspective”) and 7 (“Change the game perspective”) are related to
the Proactive Posture of the organization. The proactive posture of the organization is the final stage
in the new model (figure 1) and it reflects the best achievable sustainability, a sustainable business.
This is in alliance with Dunphy’s transformation phase as he describes the self-sustaining
organization there (Dunphy et al., 2014).
The CSR development stages vary from Reaction Posture to Proactive Posture. In this model
Reaction Posture stands for “no CSR efforts” and Proactive Posture stands for “many CSR-related
efforts”. This is also called the social responsiveness continuum (Clarkson, 1995; Wilson, 1975). The
measurement of this model is explained in the research design.
These multiple stages cause organizations to differ from each other in the sense of their CSR
development stage. Due to a lack of availability of studies that connect CSR development stages to
possible differences in underlying strategies that might have a mutual effect this relationship is
26
H1: The position in the CSR development stage influences the type of CSR credibility strategy used
Not only the type of standards and strategies used might differ between stages, but also the numbers
might change. It could be that an accommodating posture requires more CSR credibility strategies to
maintain than a defence posture. The former indicates the following hypothesis:
H2: The higher the stage of CSR development, the more CSR credibility strategies are used.
The next section will describe the CSR credibility strategies.
2.3 CSR credibility strategies
2.3.1 CSR credibility strategies in general
CSR credibility strategies and CSR standards being used all over the world. By investigating the ISO26000 it becomes clear that credibility is important for the standard. This is reflected in
ISO26000 statements that show the fundamental issues in stakeholder theory such as the legitimacy of group claims (Parmar, Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Purnell & De Colle; 2010). The ISO26000 further states that organizations should ensure that the stakeholder groups are representative and also credible (ISO, 2010:17). It is no always doable to make sure stakeholder groups are representative and credible because the environment and children could also be stakeholders which indicates that certain stakeholders cannot really speak for their selves (Moratis & Cochius, 2011). The selection of stakeholder groups might be less focused on representation and credibility than is suggested by the ISO26000 because opportunism or banality might cause the organization to engage with stakeholder groups that fit the best with the organization’s interests. The groups that are actually most adequate for aligning stakeholder interest with the organization’s interest are often left out of option. It is important to recognize this issue because it separates organizations with honest CSR intentions from those that use CSR to gain more profit or so (Furlow, 2010; Friedman, 1970). Stakeholder
27
engagement is therefore important to make certain claim perceive to be credible. Organizations could best include stakeholders in their strategy that are affected by the organization’s business and are aware of the fact it affects them because in this way the stakeholders are most critical about the organization’s functioning which allows for the best improvement in CSR efforts (Moratis, 2014).
Since this study is focused on organizations that use ISO26000 with self-assessment as a standard, a taxonomy of ISO26000-self-assessed-derived strategies for enhancing the credibility of CSR claims are used (Moratis, 2014). The taxonomy consists of credibility by standardization, engagement, dialogue, association, partnering, transparency, third party judgment, and by materiality or focus.
2.3.2 Strategy types
The credibility strategies could be divided into two groups, internal and external CSR credibility
strategies. External strategies can be seen as strategies to enhance the CSR credibility claims by using
external parties to achieve this, think of Credibility by Partnering, Credibility by Transparency and
Credibility by Third party judgment. Internal strategies are those without the involvement of external
parties, like Credibility by Standardization, Credibility by Engagement, Credibility by Dialogue,
Credibility by Association and Credibility by Materiality or focus. This distinction gives extra strength to this study’s possible practical implications as it could become more clear what type of strategies should be used at what stage and in combination of what transparency setting. The lack
research on this matter leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: Internal CSR credibility strategies occur in all stages equally while external strategies are used increasingly as the CSR development stage rises.
The thought behind this hypothesis is that internal strategies form the core of CSR development and
28
conducting green corporate social responsible business (Moratis, 2014). Without credibility by
engagement for example it will be difficult to use credibility by partnering. Since partnering with
NGOs and the use of third party judgments could only be possible when already in a higher stage of
CSR development or when already using internal strategies and in that way have formed the CSR
core already, it is not unthinkable that external strategies are used more often at organizations
positioned in development stage 3 or 4 than at stage 1 or 2. At the same time this implies that in
higher stages of CSR development more strategies are used than at lower stages, leading to the
following hypothesis:
H4: The use of more CSR credibility strategies reflects a higher stage (1-4) in CSR development.
2.3.3 Internal strategies
2.3.3.1 Credibility by standardization
Credibility by standardization is seen as a strategy to improve CSR credibility because
standardization by, for example, quality management, is a form of enforcing an organization’s CSR claims (Rasche, 2011). If an organization is focused on delivering quality then automatically some aspects of the business are focused on improvements, and some of these improvements might be better for the outside world as well. This is why standardization can in theory enhance CSR
credibility claims (Moratis, 2014). A standard like the ISO26000, which is threated in this research, is causing organizations that adopt this standard to open-up on their processes and give some insight to the outside world on how they do things. This on its own is causing organizations’ CSR claims to be more credible and so CSR by standardization is seen as a strategy to increase credibility on these claims (ibid).
29
2.3.3.2 Credibility by engagement
Credibility by engagement is an important way of showing the level of mutual trust and confidence that the interests of all parties are understood (Kazoleas & Teeven, 2009; Moratis, 2014). When all interests and intentions are understood, the CSR claims made by organizations can be better
understood and perceived as more credible or less credible. It at least gives a more realistic view of the CSR claims. CSR engagement should therefore be used by organizations to enhance the CSR credibility claims.
2.3.3.3 Credibility by dialogue
Credibility by dialogue is an addition to credibility by engagement because it not only recognizes the importance of engagement, but also of having a dialogue with stakeholders to build a trust
relationship, identify issues early, create opportunities for improvement and create a wide supporting group that can be used to make corporate decisions faster in times of crisis (Moratis, 2014).
2.3.3.4 Credibility by association
Credibility by association means that organizations voluntary seek association with initiatives or organizations that embody CSR ambitions so that the organizations’ CSR initiatives are perceived as, or are, more credible (Seitanidi and Crane, 2009). These initiatives or organizations can be business networks, initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions through supply chain cooperation or corporate responsibility coalitions that operate internationally (Grayson and Nelson, 2013). By associating with such organizations or initiatives, organizations can besides increasing its credibility on CSR initiatives also promote CSR within their branch or network (Moratis, 2014). Recognition could also be part of an organizations’ strategy for seeking association with initiatives or
organizations that embody CSR ambitions. Commitments regarding the impacts of their actions, taking appropriate action for them, evaluating performance and drawing progress reports are all examples of credibility enhancing actions the organization can take (ISO, 2010: 79). Interestingly,
30
none of the above described associations are needed for an organization to be socially responsible (ibid., p. 82). Yet again, it is encouraged by ISO26000 to facilitate association with initiatives and organizations that embody CSR ambitions because, besides the earlier mentioned advantages, voluntary initiatives can be a good stakeholder engagement platform and a multi-stakeholder governance system (Moratis, 2014). Next to this, associations also serve as a structured and channeled way of stakeholder dialogue or stakeholder buffer (Gupta, 2011).
2.3.3.5 Credibility by materiality or focus
Credibility by materiality or focus allows organizations to enhance their credibility by committing
their selves to material impacts, taking appropriate and focused action and performance assessing and
reporting on progress and shortcomings in applicable ways (Moratis, 2014). Moratis concluded the
following in his 2014 paper: “A business using ISO 26000 should analyze its environmental and
social impacts and determine which impacts (may) matter most to them, their stakeholders, the environment and society as a whole and consequently focus its CSR initiatives on these high-materiality subjects”.
2.3.4 External strategies
2.3.4.1 Credibility by partnering
Associated with credibility by association is credibility by partnering. Partnering with NGO’s is something, according to the ISO26000, organizations can use to enhance their credibility claim(s). Organizations that use this strategy do not only associate themselves with other organization or initiatives that embody CSR claims but do also build on the idea of strategic or integrative partnerships with these NGOs (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012). The idea behind partnering is that by doing so they can reduce negative impacts or enhance positive ones because partnering with other
31
organizations, the government or NGOs can lead to synergies and to maximization of complementary resources, knowledge and skills (ISO, 2010: 72).
2.3.4.2 Credibility by transparency
Credibility by transparency is an important topic within the ISO26000 and is based on
communicating dilemmas, choices and performance. Communication for CSR purposes of course reflects back in the level of transparency, but has more implications: it raises awareness on social responsibility strategies, shows how the organization is responding to the interests and expectations of stakeholders, shows whether or not the organization meets its social responsibility commitments, providing information about the impacts of the organization’ activities, it shows the change in impacts over time, it facilitates comparison with peer organizations and thereby stimulating
performance improvements on social responsibility, and it shows that an organization can enhance its CSR reputation to strengthen stakeholder trust (ISO, 2010:76). By communicating well, organization try to open up to stakeholders, show transparency and even involve stakeholders in CSR strategy formulation (Moratis, 2014).
2.3.4.3 Credibility by third party judgment
By showing that an organization adheres to certain standards and operates in accordance to them,
third party judgment offers transparency regarding its CSR performance. Organizations can invite stakeholders, or make arrangements with, to review or monitor the organization’ CSR performance. By doing so it makes the organization’ CSR claims more credible because it is judged by
stakeholders, experts or specialized accounting organizations that embody CSR claims or make
assurance statements (Moratis, 2014). The credibility of a CSR report is higher when third party
ratings of their CSR performance is included in the report (Pflugrath, Roebuck & Simnett; 2011),
32
trusted sources for third party ratings due to the fact that they are often more knowledgeable and
demanding on CSR claims than other stakeholders (Dawkins, 2004; Globescan and Sustainability,
2012). The ISO26000 states the following on the topic: “Certification of ISO 26000 and the
development of alternative certifiable comprehensive CSR standards have proven to be touchy issues, as many standardization organizations worldwide have rejected the development of such
alternatives. The Netherlands proves a case in point: as a response to the development of the CSR Performance Ladder, the Dutch norm commission for CSR has chosen to develop a practical guideline for ISO 26000 (called NPR9026) that aims to help organizations to arrive at a ISO 26000 self-assessment through a – to a more or lesser extent – rigorous process of evidencing CSR claims”.
The main reason for developing the NPR9026 is that the Dutch norm commission for CSR did not
see the connection between the CSR performance ladder and the intellectual legacy of the ISO26000
(Boon, Ingeborg; direct communication; 2014). Third party judgments are still required in order to
make the certification credible (Moratis and Tatang, 2013). Though, it must be said that NGOs often
seek collaboration with organizations to gain access to a variety of funds, indicating that third party
judgments might not be as credible as is perceived (Lucea, 2010).
2.3.5 CSR credibility strategies combined
Of course, a combination of strategies, internal and external, could be used simultaneously. An
organization could, for instance, pursue both a CSR credibility strategy of engagement by
association among members as a CSR credibility strategy of third party judgment. Third party
judgment will most often work in the favor of the organization. So if the third party is a well-known
organization for judging the credibility and dealing with CSR, a combination including partnering
could be very effective as a whole. Since all strategies enhance the credibility of CSR claims, an
organization should ultimately be willing to use all CSR enhancing strategies in order to maximize
33
organization to be perceived as more valuable while the efforts for the CSR claim have already been
made, no matter what strategy is used. The more CSR credibility enhancing strategies are used, the
more valuable the CSR efforts of the organization become.
2.4 Transparency
Publishing platform NEN (National and European Norms) allows organizations to use ISO 26000 as
a standard for publishing their self-assessment. Organizations can choose three different options of
self-assessment: option one, option two and option three. Option one reflects the least transparent
self-assessment and option three the highest amount of transparency. Option two remains in the
middle of both. This way organizations can decide their selves how far they want to go in sharing
CSR-related information with stakeholders. The level of transparency might influence the
relationship between the CSR-development stage of an organization and its CSR credibility strategy
since a higher level of transparency will probably result in a strategy that involves more
communication with stakeholders and NGOs and in the organization being more involved with
stakeholders than organizations with a lower level of transparency. Not showing full transparency
might reflect the CSR development stage or the type of CSR strategy they use. The former leads to
the following hypothesis:
H5: Transparency positively correlates with the CSR development stage of an organization, indicating that organizations that choose a self-assessment with a higher transparency option are positioned in a higher CSR development stage (1-4).
Not only does the level of transparency an organization choses positively correlate with the CSR
development stage of the organization, it also leads to the use of more CSR credibility strategies. An
organization being more transparent about their CSR efforts are most likely to be more advanced at
34
H6: Using a higher level of transparency results in the use of more CSR credibility strategies.
Not only will a higher transparency option most probably lead to more CSR strategies used, it might
also be positively related to the use of more external strategies due to the same reasons for which
hypothesis 6 is constructed. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H7: Each transparency option (1, 2, and 3) relates to different CSR credibility strategies.
The level of transparency might not only correlate with the CSR development stage and the CSR
credibility strategies that are used, but could also cause stakeholders to doubt the CSR claims of
organizations due to the fact they consciously chose for not reflecting the highest amount of
transparency possible (that is with option 1 and 2). Transparency could thus be seen as a very
effective way of counteracting stakeholder skepticism (Burchell & Cook, 2006). Michel Bande (SVP,
Sustainable Development, Solvay and Vice Chair, CSR Europe’s Board of Directors) highlights that
the increasing interest in business opportunities related to innovative CSR approaches and the
corresponding growing stakeholder expectations for corporate accountability put more pressure on
CSR transparency. For rational and quality decision-making, stakeholders need more than just
financial reports, they want to know the non-financial performance as well (CSRwire, 2012). At the
national level, European governments like France and Denmark encourage organizations to report on
non-financial performances and demand a transparent view. Organizations operating in that countries
can either comply or explain why they are not complying, both leading to transparency in financial
and non-financial performances (CSRwire, 2012).
2.5 Blending the theory
Blending the theories of CSR Stage Development, CSR Credibility Strategies and Transparency leads
35
three variables. This relationship is a three-way relationship in which each variable is linked to both
others. One could say that it is a continuous circle presented in this framework in which a movement
in one variable automatically triggers movement in another variable.
Important in figure 2 is that it shows all possible relationships between CSR development stage, CSR
credibility strategy and Transparency. It is therefore a quick overview and summary of all the
important aspects this study builds upon. Moreover, the research framework shows clear connections
between the variables which helps understand what is essential to this study.
The following example illustrates how the model works: An organization can be positioned in
one of four CSR development stages at a time (Reaction Posture, Defence Posture, Accommodation
Posture, and Proactive Posture). At the same time, organizations could use several different CSR
credibility enhancing strategies to indicate their way of communication, implementation and
evaluation of their CSR efforts while they also use one of the three transparency options for their
self-assessments. If an organization is in CSR development stage 2, uses three internal and one
external credibility enhancing strategies, while displaying their CSR efforts under transparency option 2, a movement in one of the three variables (let’s say the use of 1 more external strategy) could trigger the CSR development stage to move towards stage 3 and eventually, if the
