University of Amsterdam
The implementation and effects of CSR integration
in long-term strategies
By Anne Mentink
Student: Anne Mentink, student no. 11145927
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Arno Kourula
2 This document is written by Anne Mentink 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.
3
Abstract
The present research was conducted to discover how the extent to which corporate social responsibility (CSR) is integrated in the long-term strategy of an organization can be increased. Current literature explains the importance of high CSR integration in business strategies in order to contribute to social and environmental sustainability. This study contributes to the current literature by enhancing insight in a determinative factor how to achieve higher CSR integration. Qualitative methods were used to obtain information and knowledge about aspects and factors influencing the CSR strategy development of companies within the Fast Moving Consumer Good industry. Both exploratory and confirmatory research is used since this study is developing propositions by means of the empirical data generated in this research, and is also testing these propositions against this empirical data on falsification. Three cases were assessed on factors that are of possible relevance to the integration of CSR in long-term strategies. Based on the findings a model is developed explaining the determinative influence strategic decision makers have on the level of CSR integration in long-term business strategies. Findings suggest that the commitment of the strategic decision makers within the organization is determinative for the level of CSR integration in long-term strategies. This finding also enabled the researcher to make an extension of the original model, explaining factors influencing how strategic decision makers pursue CSR. Findings on other relations did not lead to the identification of variables that form a determinative factor for the level of CSR integration in the long-term business strategy, however do pose interesting findings. These findings are also incorporated in the model, and will also be shortly explained in this report. Based on the developed model managerial implications of the findings are discussed. In addition, directions for future research are proposed.
4
Table of Content
Abstract 3
1. Introduction and Research Question 5
1.1. Background 5
1.2. Key Definitions 5
1.3. Research Gap and Question 6
1.4. Structure of study 7
2. Literature Review 9
2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility 9
2.2. Sustainability 12
2.3. Motives for social and environmental responsiveness 13
2.4. Successful social and environmental responsiveness 14
2.5 The notion of time in successful social and environmental responsiveness 16
3. Research Methods 18
3.1. Research Design 18
3.2. Data Analysis Strategy 22
3.3. Evaluation of research quality 24
4. Findings 26
4.1. General Findings 26
4.2. Findings on Business Strategy 28
4.3. Findings on CSR Strategy 30
4.4. Findings on CSR Activities 33
4.5. Findings on Organizational Culture 35
4.6. Findings to answer the Research Question 37
5. Discussion 40
6. Conclusion 46
6.1 Summary of findings 46
6.2 Managerial Implications 47
6.3 Research Limitations and Future Suggestions 49
References 53
5
1. Introduction and Research Question
1.1. Background
It is one of mankind´s greatest challenge to achieve a social and environmental responsible and sustainable society. Companies need to look at new and innovative business models to grasp on opportunities such as circular economy or self-reliance. Which are challenges, when implemented successfully, that provide benefits on the long run, and completely change to new business habits (Lacy & Rutqvist, 2015). Since sustainability has become one of the most influential trends nowadays for organizations to focus on, it is surprising that often managers approach sustainable development with a one-dimensional perspective (e.g. addressing sustainability in product designs or manufacturing operations, or exclusively integrating sustainability in marketing strategies), rather than approaching it as a multi-dimensional opportunity where they combine economic performance with social responsibility (Hart & Milstein, 2003; White, 2009). Kumar, Rahman, Kazmi and Goyal (2012) claim that sustainability is used by companies in order to explore opportunities for growth and development. However, for firms to achieve successful integration and implementation of sustainability strategies, firms should integrate sustainability in their core business and culture (Bonn & Fisher, 2011; Galpin, Whittington & Bell, 2013; White, 2009). This means that all firms’ stakeholders are to be involved, supportive and contributing (White, 2009).
1.2. Key Definitions
In this report the term sustainability is defined as “a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; p.24). In other words, sustainability is
6
concerned with the future generations, and to ensure that future generations are able to benefit from the world the same way as is done by current generations, or better. Sustainability can be grouped into three pillars, environmental (e.g. emissions, resource scarcity, biodiversity), social (e.g. human well-being, poverty, hunger, diseases), and economic (financial health of organization) sustainability (Bonn & Fisher, 2011). The present research is executed in order to address the first two pillars, social and environmental sustainability, and how organizations can contribute to these by looking at how the level of corporate social responsibility (CSR) integration can be increased in the long-term business strategy.
An important distinction is to be made between the terms (corporate social) responsibility and sustainability, since they are connected but do not explain similar things (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). Responsible actions do not necessarily imply to be sustainable activities and vice versa. Responsibility is concerned with doing the right thing for both the organization and society (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001), whereas sustainability is concerned with the long-term perspectives of social and environmental issues. Therefore, it is important that social and environmental responsible activities are being considered on the long run, and will become sustainable by integrating it in a company’s long-term strategy and culture (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Bonn & Fisher, 2011; Galbreath, 2010; Galpin et al., 2013; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; White, 2009).
1.3. Research Gap and Question
As explained, it is important that social and environmental responsible activities are being considered on the long run and will become sustainable. Previous studies have identified that in order to improve performance in terms of social responsibility, organizations should integrate CSR in their long-term business strategy (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Galbreath, 2010;
7
Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; White, 2009). Previous studies furthermore state that CSR should be integrated in the company’s vision, mission and culture (Bonn & Fisher, 2011; Galpin et al., 2009). However, often the link between social and environmental issues and the business strategy is lacking (Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010). Too often responsibility activities are disconnected from the business strategy, and lack in their social impact, or business results (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Dahlsrud (2008) explains the need for businesses to create understanding how to integrate CSR in the long-term business strategy. Currently in the existing literature this how issue is underexposed. CSR scholars have extensively researched the importance of high CSR integration in the business strategy, and how this high integration contributes to better results for business and society (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Galbreath, 2010; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; White, 2009). However, how to achieve higher CSR integration is a less common subject amongst current literature. Therefore, a gap is identified between the awareness of the importance of having CSR integrated in the long-term business strategy, and how to do this. For that reason, the aim of this research is to induce a model on how the level of CSR integration can be increased within the long-term business strategy. In specific, determinative (organizational) factors are identified that are of influence on how CSR is integrated in long-term strategies. This study searches for (positive) relationships whereby the business strategy is the dependent variable. The research question this study aims to answer is: How can CSR be integrated in
long-term strategies in order to contribute to social and environmental sustainability?
1.4. Structure of study
The first part in this thesis report will address previous research to define CSR and sustainability, and to identify existing information on integrating CSR in short- and long-term
8
strategies. It is explained why and how companies are integrating social and environmental sustainability. Also the differences in time perspective (short-term/long-term) in how CSR is integrated in a company’s strategy is discussed. Long-term strategies in this study are the companywide business strategies that are developed for a longer period of time. The exact time frame differs per organization, but generally is between 5 to 10 years ahead. Short-term strategies are the more operational strategies, or departmental strategies. These strategies are often developed annually, where they are based on twelve-monthly targets. However, as can be deduced from the sustainability definition used earlier in this chapter, long-term thinking in terms of sustainability is generational, rather than thinking 5 to 10 years ahead as it is for organizations. In the discussion chapter of this report it is discussed how long-term organizational strategies are contributing to long-term as it is defined by sustainability.
The second part of this report discusses the findings from this research by means of a set of themes. The general findings on the identified relationships, and what the effects are for further findings in this research, are discussed. Furthermore findings by means of the exploratory part of this research are presented, whereby propositions are developed based on the empirical data generated in this study. Followed by the findings on the confirmatory part of this study, where it is explained which proposition(s) contribute to answering the research question. The exploratory and confirmatory findings are presented per particular theme.
The third part of this report is a discussion on the findings and the research question. The developed model is elaborated, and also the extension of this model is discussed. Lastly, three concluding sections are presented: summary of findings, managerial implications, and research limitations and future suggestions.
9
2. Literature Review
In today’s world CSR has become imperative, and represents a major responsibility, as well as opportunity for many organizations (Rangan, Chase and Karim, 2015; Wang & Bansal, 2012; White, 2009). It has become a highly influential trend for both organizations and the public to focus on (Bernstein, 2000). The significant power businesses have bring along expectations to contribute to social issues (Davis, 1960). This growing responsibility to operate ethically, and to make sure that products and processes are safe for both society and the environment, have changed the business landscape and how strategies are developed (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; White, 2009). How responsibility is integrated in a company’s strategy, and the time perspective of this strategy, plays an important role in the actual contributions to social and environmental issues (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; Wang & Bansal, 2012). Therefore this literature review provides information from existing literature on both CSR and sustainability, why companies show social and environmental responsiveness, and how they can achieve successful social and environmental responsiveness, including the notion of time.
2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility
Responsibility is concerned with doing the right thing for both the society and the firm (Porter & Kramer, 2006; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Porter and Kramer (2006) state that activities and choices made must benefit both the business and society, basically creating a win-win situation (or as Porter and Kramer refer to it as shared value). The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2000) differentiates between Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Environmental Responsibility. However, a study by Dahlsrud (2008) explains that the environmental and social dimension are equally emphasized when CSR is applied. According to Wang & Bansal (2012), activities are considered to be socially responsible when
10
they have social and environmental features, and contribute to the social good. Rangan et al. (2015) argue that the main goal of CSR is to align a firm’s business purpose and values with social and environmental activities. In order to establish this a company should integrate a social responsible perspective in its business and strategies (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Carroll and Shabana (2010) built on this view by saying that it is in a business’s long-term self-interest to perform socially responsible activities now, in order to contribute to its own long-term viability. Previous research (Waddock & Graves, 1997) claims that CSR can both have a positive and a negative impact on business performance. Although, it is also argued that generally the CSR activities outweigh the negative, resulting in positive economic returns for the business (Margolis, Elfenbein & Walsh, 2007; Margolis & Walsh, 2003).
The positive impact of CSR is the increase in business value through interaction between business strategies and CSR activities (Porter & Kramer, 2006). First of all, public awareness regarding social and environmental issues is growing and also the consumer preferences for products that involve CSR elements have increased (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006). It therefore poses to be an important opportunity for firms to respond to in order to increase the value creation for consumers (Bernstein, 2000; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006; Rangan et al. 2015). Secondly, CSR activities help to build strategic resources, such as stakeholder relationships and positive CSR reputations (Wang & Bansal, 2012). Organizations that actively pursue CSR strategies are attractive to stakeholders who highly valuate social responsibility, leading to close(r) stakeholder engagement (Greening & Turban, 2000). Furthermore these organizations signal to the public that they operate responsibly, resulting in a positive CSR reputation (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Lastly, CSR activities can prevent additional costs caused by future government interventions, such as stricter industry standards or regulations, since socially responsible firms generally operate well above the legal minimum and often already
11
comply to new established standards and regulations (Carroll, 1991; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Wang & Bansal, 2012).
However, there are also cases that argue against CSR. For example that the more a firm’s resources are employed by CSR activities, the fewer resources are available for its core business, and attention is shifted away from the primary purpose of the business (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Moreover, managers may be distracted from their core responsibilities or may be incapable of executing the social activities (Davis, 1973; Wang & Bang, 2012). Due to the regular orientation towards operations and finances, managers lack the skills desired to make socially responsible decisions (Davis, 1973). They furthermore have to deal with different stakeholder views regarding what social and environmental issues should be tackled. Lastly, Wang and Bansal (2012) and Wright and Ferris (1997) explain the agency problem (Eisenhardt, 1989a) that can be caused due to CSR activities, where managers (agents) act out of self-interest to enhance their own public image or to create future career opportunities, rather than executing the activities that are most beneficial for the shareholders (principal).
Though, a study by Margolis et al. (2007) identified that the overall effect of CSR is positive. Organizations that dedicate business resources to social performance do not seem to be imposing these costs to their shareholders (Margolis et al., 2007). Elaborating on this financial impact, Margolis et al. (2007) also identified that organizations involved in CSR are not necessarily rewarded financially for their engagement, however, companies involved in CSR avoid being penalized, whilst businesses ‘who do wrong’ can confront severe damage when being caught. However, in contrast to the earlier claim of lack in financial reward, a study by Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes (2003) found that CSR does increase financial performance, due to the enhancement in CSR reputation, customer loyalty and goodwill with stakeholders. The challenge for organizations however, is to obtain understanding on how CSR is socially
12
constructed in a particular situation, and how to integrate this construction in the business strategy (Dahlsrud, 2008).
2.2. Sustainability
Sustainability is concerned with the long-term perspective of social, environmental and economic issues (Crane & Matten, 2007). It is a fast growing phenomena in strategic management (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014), and is commonly defined as “a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; p.24). The same logic applies to organizations, since organizations try to be more, or at least as, profitable in the current and future, as they were in the past (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). Slawinski and Bansal (2015, p. 532) therefore explain business sustainability as “the ability of a firm to meet its short-term financial needs, without compromising their (or others’) ability to meet their future needs”. According to Brennan, Binney, McCrohan and Lancaster (2010), in order for something to be sustainable, it must hold over a longer period of time. Crane and Matten (2007, p. 23) provided a more specific definition on sustainability, where they refer to sustainability as “the long-term maintenance of systems according to environmental, social and economic considerations.”. Sustainability can be divided into three pillars, environmental, social and economical sustainability. The environmental perspective of sustainability considers issues such as physical resources, non-renewable resources, pollution, footprints and biodiversity (Bonn & Fisher, 2011). Social sustainability involves responsibility towards the community, such as social justice, hunger and diseases, poverty, education and such (Bonn & Fisher, 2011). And lastly, economic sustainability is about the long-term economic perspective of an organization (Bonn & Fisher, 2011). Considering social and environmental sustainability, this
13
contains the ideas of maintaining (or enhancing) social and environmental circumstances over the long-term (Brennan et al., 2010), so that they still represent livable and workable situations for the next generations. To achieve this, firms should not only consider responsible developments on the short-term, but also on the long-term (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Bonn & Fisher, 2011; Siegel, 2009; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; White, 2009). To ensure that future generations can also benefit of, and consume similar resources as the current generations do today (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015).
2.3. Motives for social and environmental responsiveness
Different motives can be identified when assessing why organizations emphasize the responsibility strategies and activities they execute or incorporate in their business strategies. According to Bansal and Roth (2000), four drivers of corporate sustainable responsiveness can be detected. Firstly, legislation has been recognized widely when considering the level of sustainable responsibility an organization is showing (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Fines, penalties, incentives, but also regulations have both forced and supported organizations in becoming committed in attacking several social and environmental issues. Secondly, stakeholders, such as customers, local communities, environmental interest groups and the natural environment (nature) itself, also show to be significantly inducing when it comes to sustainable responsiveness (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Managers feel pressured to avert negative publication and try to build stakeholder support by acting responsive (Bansal & Roth, 2000). Thirdly, economic opportunities are an important driver that intensifies sustainable responsiveness. Increasing internal efficiency, such as lowering the costs of inputs and manufacturing or reducing waste disposal are attractive opportunities for organizations to respond to since they support the economic sustainability of
14
the business but also address the other two pillars of sustainability (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Hart & Milstein, 2003). The final driver is ethical motives, this is when the organization is genuinely concerned with social and environmental issues, and where they feel the responsibility to act upon social and environmental issues (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Davis, 1960).
However, although many organizations have already invested in sustainability management and CSR strategies, a clear view or focus still remains vague (Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010; Porter & Kramer, 2006). According to Bansal and DesJardine (2014), the ignorance of time from most strategic managers has led to short-termism, which is harming the impact of sustainability. Time is a central aspect to sustainability, and should be at the center of organizational strategy forming so that it can both enhance organizational and social outcomes over a longer period of time (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015). Managers tend to focus on the short-term results at the expense of social and ecological, and financial performances on the run (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015). Organizations with a long-term orientation are better capable of making strategic decisions that enhance the realization of the benefits of CSR activities (Wang & Bansal, 2012). It enables the organization to recognize the potential value of CSR investments, resulting in choosing a technology that will endure and emphasizes continuous innovation (Wang & Bansal, 2012).
2.4. Successful social and environmental responsiveness
To establish livable and workable situations that are socially and environmentally sustainable involves responsibility (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). Most responsibility scholars claim that CSR represents a set of organizational activities that are creating value for both society and the firm (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). However, being socially and environmentally responsible is often confused with being sustainable, since addressing social
15
and environmental issues might be beneficial for society and the environment, however do not necessarily need to be sustainable (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). Therefore CSR strategies are often creating value on the short-term, and not by definition contribute to social or environmental sustainability (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). To contribute to the latter, CSR should not be treated as a separate entity within the whole, meaning that it should not be directed by an established CSR group or department, but should be built into the organization (White, 2009). White (2009) claims that it should be “integrated in the rhythm of a business”(p. 392), where it is owned by the entire business. Hart and Milstein (2003) and White (2009) furthermore explain that all three sustainability pillars: environmental protection, social responsibility and economic development, should be at the core of a sustainability strategy, and should be integrated in a company’s purpose, values and principles, in order for the business to experience benefits. Galpin et al., (2015) built on this view by claiming that in today’s world firms need systematic approaches to sustainability if they want to be competitive in the long-run. They argue that management should establish an organizational culture where sustainability is widely supported. In order to do so, sustainability should be integrated in the company’s mission, vision, goals and strategy (Gaplin et al., 2015). Also Bonn and Fisher
(2011) built upon these arguments where they argue that if organizations want to become sustainable, they need to ensure that sustainability is integrated in the core of the business. They explain that the organization’s vision needs to reflect the commitment to sustainability, starting at the top. Sustainability needs to be topical amongst the strategic decision makers, and needs to be integrated into the strategy content, rather than being a separate pillar (Bonn and Fisher, 2011). It furthermore should be embedded in the organizational culture, establishing commitment of employees, and stimulating employees to pro-actively initiate and participate in initiatives (Bonn and Fisher, 2011; Galbreath, 2010).
16
2.5 The notion of time in successful social and environmental responsiveness
As explained in the previous sections, addressing social and environmental issues involves responsible actions that contribute to both short- and long-term perspectives, and are supported by and integrated in the entire business (Bansal & Dejardine, 2014; Bonn & Fisher, 2011; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; White, 2009). Since CSR strategies often only create value on the short-term, they therefore alone do not fully suffice when considering a company’s contribution to a better society and environment (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). It is important for firms to consider the entire organization, including the core business, business processes, organizational culture and the long-term perspectives when developing CSR strategies (Bonn & Fisher, 2011). A broader scope is necessary in order to make an actual difference, and to contribute to both the quality of life of society, the environment and their own future prospects (Siegel, 2009). Bansal and DesJardine (2014) and Slawinski and Bansal (2015) support this by explaining that in order to abate the contest between business and society, CSR should become part of the long-term strategic decisions.
Bansal and DesJardine (2014) explain the issue of short-termism, which are actions that thrive to meet the best possible results on the short-term, however are suboptimal for the long-run. Companies that focus on the short-term experience more volatile earnings and often fail to create value on the long-run (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). Organizations that focus on short-term and long-short-term are more likely to experience better results than when exclusively focusing on the short-term (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015). Recent research of Slawinski & Bansal (2015) has found that firms who emphasize both short- and long-term are looking for short- and long-term solutions to tackle issues. These firms look inside and outside the organization to search for solutions that address both business needs, and societal issues (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015). Organizations that emphasize both short- and long-term tend to invest more in product and process innovations, train employees to become more efficient, to
17
lower the turnover, and to build relationships with the community to ensure responsible developed resources (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Longer term investments will align business with society. Firms with a long-term orientation can align interests of internal and external stakeholders by imposing a vision that ensures alignment in beliefs on how to deal with CSR (Petts, Herd, Gerrard & Horne, 1999; Wang & Bansal, 2012). So when integrating CSR in the long-term perspective of a business, this will contribute to social and environmental sustainability, and will benefit the business in an economic sense (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Siegel, 2009).
18
3. Research Methods
3.1. Research Design
The research question, to identify how CSR can be integrated in long-term strategies in order to contribute to social and environmental sustainability, desires an exploratory research approach since it aims to discover new insights and to assess the topic CSR in a new light (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2016). This research question requires in-depth information about the different interpretations of employees regarding the CSR practices executed by the organization. To deduce this information, qualitative methods are used to collect and analyze data. By means of the exploratory approach propositions are developed that are based on the empirical data of this study. Next to that, a confirmatory approach is used since these propositions are also tested against the empirical data. The exploratory approach will support the researcher in identifying possible relationships that are relevant in answering the research question. The confirmatory part is testing these relationships on falsification (Tukey, 1980). An advantage of a combination of exploratory and confirmatory research is that the confidence in the developed propositions is increased, since the probability of developing propositions that will be proven false in the future is decreased (Tukey, 1980).
This research is commenced based on an inductive approach, where the researcher will seek to build up a model that is based on the collected data (Saunders et al., 2016). This approach is combined with a deductive approach, since prior to the data collection a list of themes is established that possibly are of influence on how CSR is integrated in the long-term strategy of an organization. With a deductive approach data are collected to test theoretical propositions (Saunders et al., 2016). The established themes were constructed based on existing literature, and form the framework for gathering and analyzing the data. The themes are: Business Strategy, CSR Strategy, CSR Activities, and Organizational Culture. Based on the
19
literature these categories are of possible influence on how an organization is integrating CSR in their long-term business strategy.
Furthermore, the grounded theory method is applied. The goal of the grounded theory method is to develop a grounded theory around the key relationships that emerge from the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory involves the building of a model through the analysis of data, and contains both inductive and deductive thinking (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Whilst analyzing the data, repeated concepts are labeled with codes, which are gained from the data (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). As more data is analyzed, relationships emerge between the codes. These relationships become the base for a new model (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
In order to collect the data, a multiple case-study is used. Case-studies are an important tool to obtain exploratory information and evidence needed for the development of a model (Eisenhardt, 1989b). In a multiple case-study data are retrieved from multiple cases (Saunders et al., 2016). In this research the data are retrieved using three cases within the Fast Moving Consumer Good industry: BevNourishCo, NutritionCo and FoodBevCo (fictional names to warrant confidentiality).
Sample
The research sample consists of participants that are employed within the Fast Moving Consumer Good industry. This particular industry is chosen due to the many and diverse CSR opportunities present. Companies within this industry dedicate high numbers to CSR, in 2014-2015 the companies’ share to CSR rose to 57% (Ramanathan, 2014-2015). Issues such as
environmental efficient product lines, waste disposal, but also climate change and quality of life (well-being and health) of the people are issues that these firms are confronted with on a
20
daily base. The substantial size of these companies and their global reach makes that they significantly impact global situations, and can positively contribute to them.
Following the multiple case-study method, several companies are approached by means of the personal network of the researcher. Therefore, a non-probability sampling strategy is applied since the companies are not selected at random (Saunders & Lewis, 2011). The criteria for companies to be approached is that they are operating within the food and beverage industry, because of personal interests of the researcher, however no additional requirements are set.
Furthermore, a purposive (heterogeneous) sampling strategy is applied since the participants are selected based on specific and diverse characteristics, such as firm, discipline and job position. (Saunders et al., 2016). After an intensive search to find companies willing to participate, the contact persons of the researcher sent out a corporate request to gather employees who were willing to participate in an interview. The interviewed employees voluntarily offered to participate. The criteria for the employees to participate are that they are employed within different positions and within different departments or teams. The final sample consisted of 12 employees who were employed by BevNourishCo (6), NutritionCo (4) or FoodBevCo (2). See Appendix 1 for a list of participants.
Data sources
To execute the case-studies semi-structured interviews were used. With semi-structured interviews the interviewer asks about a set of themes using some predetermined questions (see Appendix 2 for the interview questions)(Saunders & Lewis, 2011). Semi-structured interviews are easier to analyze than unstructured interviews, however, still offer the interviewer the opportunity to ask additional questions or to omit topics (Saunders et al., 2016). Furthermore, applying this method will probe deeper for theoretical insights (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015). The
21
purpose of interviewing the participants is to obtain information regarding the company’s
CSR-strategies/policies, -motives, and -culture. The earlier mentioned themes were the starting-point from where the interview questions were built on.
In the selected companies, interviews were conducted within various disciplines and positions. This was done to create a broad perspective regarding the CSR-practices of the company, and to validate theorizing (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015). It is important to consider the entire organization and the different perspectives when developing CSR strategies (Galpin et al., 2015). Interviewing different disciplines and positions have provided the researcher with a realistic view and a more honest perspective of how CSR is dealt with throughout the organization, since e.g. interviewing the CSR manager will give the researcher a different perspective of how the company is dealing with CSR than when interviewing the sales manager.
The interviews are complemented with secondary documentary data per case. Annual reports, CSR or sustainability reports, newspaper articles, organizational journals, and corporate websites are used to obtain company related information with regard to the company’s CSR-practices, -initiatives and -policies (see Appendix 3 for a list of secondary documents consulted). The secondary data served to attain a greater amount of information in order for the researcher to be able to make valid conclusions that are based on multiple sources. Reliability is built through the collection of data through these multiple sources (Slawinksi & Bansal, 2015). Furthermore, the secondary data was used to encounter the difference in amount of conducted interviews per case, the secondary data was used to extend the information obtained from the interviews. When some topics were less covered by means of the interview data, this information was complemented by means of the secondary data. Lastly, it was used by the researcher to gain awareness regarding the companies, and to prepare oneself before conducting the interviews. This was done to show professionalism and interests towards the interviewees.
22
3.2. Data Analysis Strategy
Analysis started already during the collection of the interview data. During and after the collection of the interview data the interviews were transcribed. The technique used is literal transcription (Bailey, 2008). With literal transcription the level of detail is high, words such as ehh, ahh are also incorporated. Also pauses and sudden changes in sentences are transcribed and indicated with … , e.g.: “Well, I don’t know, short-term activities… I mean CSR is not a short-term… I mean, we don’t really have short-term activities in CSR I think.”.
Regarding the coding of the data, the first two stages of coding by Corbin and Strauss (1990) were used. Already during the data collection phase the researcher started the development of labels/codes, which is the first stage of coding, open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Both the interview data and the secondary data were analyzed by means of the open coding stage. Open coding involves labelling text-fragments that represents or indicates the content of that part (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The same label is given to similar units of data. Open coding is used to identify codes within the data, and to then reorganize the data by means of these codes so that the data is structured for further analysis (Saunders et al., 2016).
After the open coding stage, the within-case analyses and the cross-case analysis were conducted. These analyses are conducted in order to analyze the earlier identified (open) codes. With the within-case analyses a stand-alone description per case is developed, to become familiar with the CSR-practices, -policies and -culture per case (Eisenhardt, 1989b). Each case is analyzed individually by means of the codes. Analyzing each case individually enables the researcher to identify individual uniqueness within cases (Ayres, Kavanaugh & Knafl. 2003)
Upon completing this, a cross-case analysis was used to identify concepts common to each case (Eisenhardt, 1989b). Since this research involves only three, more or less similar, cases, the approach for the cross-case analysis is to list the similarities and differences between
23
the cases (Eisenhardt, 1989b). This search for similarities may lead to more sophisticated understanding of the organizational CSR practices, whilst identified differences may break simplistic frames (Eisenhardt, 1989b). The cross-case analysis is conducted by means of identifying similarities and differences between the (open coding) codes.
Upon completion of the cross-case analysis, dominant codes arose. Based on these dominant codes the second stage of coding, axial coding, is applied. Here relationships between the codes are explored (Saunders et al., 2016). Furthermore, the key relationships are identified that eventually contribute to answering the research question.
Based on the emergent key relationships during the axial coding stage testable propositions about the sample were built (Ayres et al., 2003; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). These propositions were assessed on how well or poorly they fit with the data of each separate case. This is done in order to ensure that there is a close fit between the relationships and the data, and to analyze the conformity of the relationships (Eisenhardt, 1989b). When propositions are supported by the majority of the cases this enhances confidence in the validity of the relationship, when propositions are not supported by the cases the relationship might need refinement or rejection (Eisenhardt, 198b9). The then confirmed propositions brought to light grounded theories from where the model is developed (Eisenhardt, 1989b).
The final step is comparing the developed model with existing literature (Eisenhardt, 1989b). Especially when building a model it is important to link results to the literature in order to enhance internal validity, generalizability, and the theoretical level of the model (Eisenhardt, 1989b). Comparing the model with the literature will enfold similarities and contradictions. Similarities increase the generalizability of the model, and contradictions will challenge the researcher to think differently, and to probe for deeper insights and evidence of the emergent model, which raises the theoretical level and internal validity (Eisenhardt, 1989b).
24
3.3. Evaluation of research quality
Reliability
Regarding data quality issues in this research, a limitation of the semi-structured interviews is the lack of standardization. This affects the reliability since other researchers may have difficulty replicating the study, and may not reveal similar information (Saunders et al., 2016). Semi-structured interviews are flexible and different questions may be asked during the different interviews. Replicating the interviews is therefore difficult and might not generate identical data. However, within this research the developed model is based on propositions that are testable. They already have undergone verification on how well they fit the data, and therefore can be proven false (Eisenhardt, 1989b).
Another reliability issue is interviewer bias (e.g. inexperienced researcher, comments, tone or non-verbal behavior) and interviewee bias (social desirability bias)(Saunders et al., 2016). However, the researcher mitigated these issues by ensuring appropriate appearance, correct use of questioning, making sure the interviewee is at ease, using a neutral tone of voice, and showing attentive listening skills (Saunders et al., 2016). Furthermore, bias in data is limited by interviewing interviewees who are employed within different departments and positions (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
Reliability is enhanced since this research is built upon qualitative interview data and secondary documentary data. By using multiple sources of data reliability is increased (Slawinksi & Bansal, 2015, Eisenhardt, 1989b). Furthermore reliability is enhanced since the exploratory research approach is complemented with confirmatory research. The relevant findings and relationships are tested against the empirical data, which increases the confidence of the findings since it is minimizing type II errors (failure to reject a false relationship)(Tukey, 1980). Lastly, the developed model is compared with existing literature. Similarities between
25
the model and the existing literature also enhances reliability, since the confidence in the model is enhanced (Eisenhardt, 1989b).
Validity
Regarding validity, interviews are potentially high on internal validity, and considered to be low on generalizability (Saunders & Lewis, 2011). However, a multiple case-study increases the generalizability of the results since it offers the opportunity to compare the results between the different cases (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The credibility of results increase when multiple cases are used for comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Additionally, within this research internal and external validity is enhanced since the developed model is compared with existing literature. Similarities with literature will sharpen the generalizability of the model since boundaries are identified to which the findings are generalizable. Contradictions will enhance internal validity since this challenges the researcher to probe deeper for insights and evidence in the model, which raises the theoretical level of the model (Eisenhardt, 1989b).
Furthermore, with regard to construct validity, a possible threat to validity is whether the interviews are measuring what the researcher is aiming to measure (Saunders et al., 2016). Here the challenge is to ensure that the interviewer and interviewee are understanding things in the same way. The researcher mitigated this threat by ensuring consistent understandings regarding certain terms and definitions, e.g. CSR/sustainability, and short-term/long-term. The researcher provided clarifications on certain terms and definitions, or asked specific questions to become aware of possible differences in understanding, and, if necessary, clarified thereafter.
26
4. Findings
4.1. General Findings
The data analysis started by means of open coding. Since this research applies a combination of an inductive and deductive approach the codes are partially based on “starter codes”, which are derived from the themes and predetermined interview questions, and partially based on codes that emerged while coding (Holloway, 2016, slide 26). For a list of codes, please see Appendix 4. Based on these codes every interview is separately coded, whereby text-fragments are labeled with a code. Also the secondary data is labeled by means of the codes. The labeled text-fragments are grouped together per case, and are then analyzed by means of the within-case analysis method. After completion of the within-within-case analyses per within-case, a cross-within-case analysis is conducted. Based on this cross-case analysis dominant/relevant codes emerged. The codes were assessed on their relevance and contribution in answering the research question. Codes that did not provide insights or linkages to the company’s long-term strategy were identified as not relevant (see Appendix 4, grey highlighted codes, for non-relevant codes). After this, axial coding was used in order to identify relationships between the dominant codes. An important finding here is the discovery of a core code. It is derived that nearly all identified relationships are connected with the code CSR-BS, level of CSR integration in the business
strategy. This code is for this reason recognized as the core code.
Next to that, as stated by the existing literature (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014; Bonn & Fisher, 2011; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; White, 2009), the extent or degree to which CSR is integrated in the business strategy (CSR-BS) is determinative for how the organization is contributing to social and environmental issues. This, together with the identification of the core code CSR-BS, provides the insight that the relationships that eventually contribute to answering the research question, are the relationships that (1) have a relation with the core code
27
CSR-BS, and (2) contain a determinative factor that positively impacts the code CSR-BS. Because of the latter it is important to identify how the relationships are interrelated. Therefore after the identification of the relationships in the axial coding stage, the relationships are assessed on their level of contribution in answering the research question by means of the just mentioned criteria, where after they are grouped into core relationships and sub relationships. The core relationships are the ones that have a direct relation with the core code CSR-BS. The core relationships can be found in Table 1 Core Relationships (Appendix 5) and in Figure 1 Model Core Relationships (see below).
The sub relationships can be found in Table 2 Sub Relationships (Appendix 6) and Figure 2 (Appendix 7). The core relationships are used in order to build the propositions. Per relationship a proposition is established. These propositions can be grouped into the themes that were established during the starting phase of this research. The propositions per theme are described in the next paragraphs. In order to test the propositions, the propositions were assessed on how
28
well they fit with the data of each case. Furthermore, it was identified how the variables within the relation are interrelated (cause-effect relationship). In Table 1, column three, Data support, it is presented how the data fits with the propositions. The (extended) findings on the propositions are described under the theme-headings, where also the interrelation of the relationship is described.
4.2. Findings on Business Strategy
The purpose of the theme Business Strategy was to analyze how the company is integrating CSR in the business strategy. As explained before, the core code, where the most relevant relationships are identified with, is the level of CSR integration in the business strategy (CSR-BS). It is identified that the CSR strategies executed by all three cases are extensive and elaborate several social and ecological issues. However, the analyzed cases also show to have integrated CSR differently in their business strategies. At some cases CSR is more the fundamental on which the strategy is built on, whereas in other cases it is a separate pillar within the strategy. However, regardless, all cases confirm that the CSR level in the business strategy is determinative for the organizational social and environmental responsiveness. Since at all cases it can be derived that there is a link between how CSR is integrated in the business strategy, and how they are considering and dealing with social and environmental issues.
Besides this finding, a relationship is identified between the level of CSR integration and the CSR commitment of strategic decision makers. This relationship can be expressed in the following proposition:
Proposition 1: The CSR commitment of the strategic decision makersis positively influencing the level of CSR integration in the business strategy.
29
The proposition for CSR commitment of the strategic decision makers (CSR-CSDM) is strongly supported by all three cases. Firstly, it is detected that there is a positive relation between CSR-CSDM and CSR-BS, meaning that when CSR-CSDM increases, CSR-BS also increases. In other words, when the strategic decision makers (SDM) have a higher commitment to CSR, the level of CSR integration in the business strategy is also high(er). For example, at NutritionCo the dual-project about social and economic focus is already in place since NutritionCo was founded. The founder of NutritionCo was stating that the company’s responsibility does not stop at the gate of the factory but extents to all its ecosystems. This vision and conviction is carried out by all NutritionCo directors and pursued at all times. And at FoodBevCo the current CEO, who is already in place since 2005, spreads the vision of ‘earning the license to operate’, where she states that in order for a business to operate it should
be able to give back to the community and environment what it is depriving. This vision is reflected in the Operating with Purpose strategy of FoodBevCo, which contains three pillars: Product (product improvements), Planet (environmental issues) and People (employees and suppliers).
The level of CSR integration in the business strategy is dependent on the CSR commitment of the SDM. When the SDM have a strong vison regarding CSR, it is shown that CSR is more dominantly present within the business strategy. As stated by one of the interviews: “The core of our business lives sustainability, since it is really a vision and a conviction that our directors have and try to pursue all the times. It is really in our DNA, because this vision is lived at the top level by our executives for many years now”. It also forms a determinative factor for the way CSR is embedded in the culture. This strong vision is cascaded down into the organization, and imposed onto the other levels. The organization is directed and guided by it, “it is what the business is driving forward” (interview data). Similarly, when the SDM have a different vision, or a priority that excels CSR, this is also reflected in how the
30
business is dealing with CSR, which part CSR takes up within the business strategy, and what the level of integration is. For instance, at BevNourishCo every investment should be able to generate financial returns in order to ensure good income for the farmers. Within BevNourishCo CSR is high on the agenda, however treated as a separate pillar within the business strategy. CSR performance is dependent on the returns it generates, rather than being commonly leveled with financial performance.
4.3. Findings on CSR Strategy
The purpose of the theme CSR Strategy is to analyse the specific CSR strategy the organizations are executing. With this theme multiple relationships are identified that have a relation with CSR-BS. The following propositions are established with CSR-BS and the codes within the theme CSR Strategy:
Proposition 2: The level of CSR integration in the business strategy is positively influencing the level
of CSR in the job activities.
The proposition for level of CSR in the job activities is supported since at all three cases it is detected that CSR-BS positively impacts CSR-JA, meaning that the higher the integration of CSR in the business strategy, the more this is reflected in the job activities. Departments such as R&D, Supply Chain and manufacturing, that naturally have more at stake with CSR, show to have special CSR targets in place that need to be complied with. However, also within departments, such as Marketing, that not necessarily have natural CSR stakes, the emphasis on CSR is higher. There is put higher emphasis on innovation regarding new product developments that contribute to a responsible lifestyle, and regarding product reformulation, in order to reduce unhealthy (non)nutrients such as fat, sugar, and/or salt. This change in focus and the CSR targets make that CSR has become more active in the day-to-day operations of many positions. CSR
31
objectives cascade through the departments, and every employee is taking care of that part that is dedicated to his or her position.
Proposition 3: The level of CSR integration in the business strategy is positively influencing the
integration of CSR in the different levels of the organization.
The propositionfor integration of CSR in the different levels of the organization is supported. It shows that the more dominantly CSR is within the business strategy, this is automatically flowing down into the organization. Within all three cases it is identified that the strategy and objectives are established by top management and thereafter tunneled down into the organization. Per team or layer it is identified what the responsibilities are with regard to the CSR strategy, the part that is applicable to their division is then taken responsibility for. These responsibilities are tunneled down further and made more specific per layer. At the operational level the strategy is made concrete. Here the concrete ideas and solutions are established in order to achieve the strategic objectives. For example, at BevNourishCo the different business directors get appointed their share of the CSR strategy, the part that is applicable to their division. This is then tunneled down to the levels below. E.g. the Corporate Procurement Officer has the objective that all raw materials have to be managed sustainably. This is then translated to a layer below, to the direct materials manager. This again is translated to her team, where the objective is split into more concrete objectives, the person responsible for sugar, has to manage the aspects of the sugar chain sustainably etc.
Proposition 4: The level of CSR integration in the business strategy is positively influencing the
stakeholder involvement in CSR.
The propositionfor stakeholder involvement in CSR is supported by all cases. This relation explains that when there is a high level of CSR integration in the business strategy this also creates high(er) stakeholder engagement. All three cases have continuous dialogues and active conversations with their external stakeholders such as NGOs (nongovernmental organizations),
32
governments, semi-governmental institutions, but also local communities and local entrepreneurs. For instance, at NutritionCo the different subsidiaries are expected to have intensive interactions with their local stakeholders. A specific dialogue tool is put in place several years ago that assists the subsidiaries in their interaction with the various local stakeholders. Furthermore they have the NutritionCo Ecosystem Fund. The aim of this fund is to generate social and economic value by supporting small players in the local economy.
Active communication is established in order to share information and knowledge, but also for lobbying, or to make agreements (sugar, salt reductions). At all three cases annual (or bi-annual) external stakeholder events are organized in order to validate the CSR strategies, and to obtain information and insights regarding topical CSR issues (e.g. green energy, sustainable dairy farming). Furthermore, at all three cases it can be deduced that when topics or objectives are high on the agenda of the organization, close contact is maintained with the relevant external stakeholders. E.g. when CO2 footprint is high on the agenda, close collaboration is established with suppliers in order to create a network between the suppliers to gather all the key learnings about how to reach a target, and to ensure that all suppliers are striving for the same goal.
Proposition 5: The company’s unique CSR challenges positively influence the level of CSR
integration in the business strategy.
The propositionfor unique CSR challenges is rejected since it cannot be derived from the data whether this relation would be generalizable. This proposition is only (weakly) supported by two of the three cases. It is doubtful because all organizations have to deliver their stake on CSR, and have unique CSR challenges compared to competitors in the field. As stated in one of the interviews: “Basically, we all have the same responsibility, which is to operate in the most sustainable manner. Every business has in that sense unique challenges since we are dealing with different categories and product, but eventually, we all have to contribute to a
33
better world”. For that reason it is difficult to claim whether unique CSR challenges have an
actual impact on the level of CSR integration in the business strategy. It is detected that the unique CSR challenges are reasons for action, however, it cannot be derived whether this also determines the level of CSR integration in the business strategy. BevNourishCo and NutritionCo, for example, are forced to deal actively with social issues because of the products and categories they represent. Their products and categories contribute to the human well-being, and are dealing with sensitive segments such as children and babies. They move in more sensitive categories than for example FoodBevCo, which is delivering products that are not healthy. They will be judged less on their CSR policies than NutritionCo. However, the level of CSR integration in the business strategy at FoodBevCo is not inferior to the level of integration of the other two cases, it might even outplay.
4.4. Findings on CSR Activities
By means of the theme CSR Activities it is analysed how the organizations are putting CSR into practice. Also with this theme multiple relationships with CSR-BS are detected. These relationships are expressed in the following propositions:
Proposition 6: The level of CSR integration in the business strategy is positively influencing the
departmental involvement in CSR.
The proposition for departmental involvement in CSR is supported since from the cases it can be deduced that how CSR is integrated in the business strategy also influences how CSR is integrated in the different departments. Departmental involvement is dependent on the role of CSR within the business strategy. For example, BevNourishCo has the rule of added value. When there is a higher focus on generating returns on investments, it can be detected that Marketing and Sales have a more pronounced role when it comes to CSR initiatives. They are the departments that have the best view on how value can be created within the market, and are
34
therefore the spearheads when it comes to new CSR initiatives. With the mission of NutritionCo, to take responsibility to ensure affordable and attainable alimentation for everyone in the world, it is noticed that the role of Supply Chain is most dominant. The front of the supply chain is active in order to ensure 100% high quality. But also the back side of the supply chain in order to ensure that the alimentation is attainable for everyone. At FoodBevCo they are striving to increase the responsibility-level of their product portfolio by reformulating the recipes of current products, and by innovating and introducing new, more responsible, product developments. Here Marketing and R&D are in the lead to search for improvement opportunities regarding their responsibility-level. Based on (i.a.) these examples it can be derived that how CSR is integrated in the business strategy is determinant in how departments are involved in CSR.
Proposition 7: The level of CSR integration in the business strategy is positively influencing
the monitoring of CSR activities.
The proposition for monitoring CSR activities is rejected, since there is too little evidence. Firstly, this proposition is not supported by all cases, and the cases that do provide supportive information, do not deliver fully convincing evidence. At these cases the relationship is detected, however only for specific parts. For example, the monitoring systems that are put in place in order to assess CSR compliance are only applicable to a very specific part of the organization, the supply chain or a subsidiary, and do not take into account the entire organization. Also these cases show that the monitoring of larger objectives, such as global CO2 footprint, waste disposal and water usage, is unclear. BevNourishCo, for example, has developed KPIs that analyze how the farmers are doing on the pillars within their Saving Planet program (program specially developed for the farmer-stakeholders), however has no KPIs developed for internal processes. Furthermore, NutritionCo has the NutritionCo Program
35
Progress, which is a tool that gathers information on how subsidiaries are performing on specific practices, including CSR practices. However, in terms of larges objectives such as CO2 footprint is it unclear how they are monitored. This indicates that the identified relation is not necessarily untrue, however, it cannot be supported by the current assessed data. This possibly is a suggestion for future research.
4.5. Findings on Organizational Culture
The final theme, Organizational Culture, is used to identify how CSR is embedded in the organizational culture, and to identify what is done to stimulate the employees to contribute to the company’s CSR strategy. With this theme several relationships with CSR-BS are identified that are expressed in the following propositions:
Proposition 8: The level of CSR integration in the business strategy is positively influencing the CSR
commitment of employees.
The proposition for CSR commitment of employees is supported since at all three cases it is derived that there is a positive relation between CSR-BS and CSR-CE. It is detected that the level of CSR commitment amongst employees depends on the urgency it has within the business. It can be identified that when CSR takes up a more substantial part in the business strategy, this automatically flows down into the company’s culture, and the commitment of employees. One of the cases states: “The business strategy is imposing a vision and guidelines,
this vision is fundamental of how we are dealing with CSR, and how we take responsibility and develop initiatives. We are all aware of the business strategy, aware of the main essential, and we are all contributing with our own level of stake”.
Furthermore, at all three cases they are dealing with employees who are intrinsically motivated to be proactive in CSR, whereas other employees have less intrinsic motivation. This
36
is sometimes caused due to ignorance of people, that they simply have a lack of knowledge in CSR, and do not know what it contains. When CSR is more significant in the business strategy, more attention is drawn to information and knowledge sharing with regard to CSR. For example, at BevNourishCo and NutritionCo special CSR side roles are established in order to process relevant CSR information to their team. This is done to create awareness, to process information and to share knowledge regarding CSR.
Proposition 9: The level of CSR integration in the business strategy is positively influencing the
organizational CSR stimulation.
The proposition for organizational CSR stimulation is only weakly supported by two out of the three cases and therefore is rejected. It is detected that certain initiatives are taken that contribute to the stimulation of employees to be proactive regarding CSR, however it is difficult to state whether these initiatives are put in place in order to stimulate the employees, or that this result is a coincidental consequence. For example, NutritionCo has a remuneration program where employees are rewarded based on three dimensions, the economic dimension, which is the performance of the company, the individual dimension, which are individual targets, and on the company’s performance on social and environmental objectives, such as CO2 footprint and water usage. This of course stimulates employees to a certain extent to remunerate on it, however it is difficult to deduce whether this social and environmental dimension is put in place to stimulate employees to be more actively involved in CSR, or that this is ‘just one of the dimensions’ in line with the company’s targets. Furthermore, only the CSR manager at NutritionCo was aware of this remuneration system, other interviewees did not mention the system. The other case that weakly supports this proposition is BevNourishCo. At BevNourishCo the level of stimulation on safety is very high. And also employees are stimulated to be more actively dealing with CSR by means of personal reports on car usage and
37
printing behavior. However, these are subjects that when reduced, lead to cost savings. It is therefore difficult to say whether these stimulation factors are put in place in order to stimulate CSR thinking, or are put in place to establish cost savings.
4.6. Findings to answer the Research Question
In the introduction the research question was posed. The aim of this research is to answer the question on how CSR can be integrated in the long-term strategy of an organization in order to contribute to social and environmental sustainability.
As explained in the beginning of this chapter, when assessing the propositions it is important to identify the interrelation between the variables. To identify which of the two variables is the dependent variable, and which one is independent. The relations in which the code CSR-BS is the dependent variable, are the ones that contribute in answering the research questions. Therefore, the findings suggest that there is one possible answer to this research question (see Figure 3 Model Supported Core Relationships, p. 37). From the findings it can be concluded that the only code that forms a determinative factor for the level of CSR integration in the business strategy, and is supported when tested against the empirical data, is CSR-CSDM, which stands for the commitment of the strategic decision makers to CSR. The relation CSR-BS – CSR-CSDM is a positive relationship whereby CSR-CSR-BS is the dependent variable. The higher the CSR commitment of the strategic decision makers, the higher the CSR integration is in the business strategy.
This finding is important to answer the research question since it explains how the level of CSR integration can be increased. It is deduced that the role of strategic decision makers makes a considerable impact on how CSR is treated in the business strategy. The meaning of
