CSR’s elephant in the room;
Gaining support for CSR activities from employees at operational levels
ThesisAuthor Elske Heringa
Student Number 10149678
Date of submission July 2014
Version Final draft
Qualification MSc. In Business Studies
Institution ABS, University of Amsterdam
Supervisor Lars Moratis
2
“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much” ― Helen Keller
3 Foreword
This research paperis the final result of the past several years of studies at the Amsterdam
Business School. During my time at Alliander, I discovered an interest in the subject of
sustainability. This interest continued to grow during the remainder of my studies at the
Amsterdam Business School. I consider myself lucky to have been able to express my
interest in the subject in the writing of my thesis. The entire process has been a great learning
experience, and it has been extremely informative to learn the views on Corporate Social
Responsibility from several large companies.
There are several people whom I would like to thank for making this research paper possible.
First: my supervisor Lars Moratis, who has been extremely supportive and who has
continuously offered great advice. I would also like to thank Mark van Veen, the second
viewer. I am grateful to the managers that took the time from their busy schedules to allow me
to interview them. On a more personal level, I would like to thank my boyfriend for being so
supportive throughout the past few years. Finally, a special note to my dad whom is no longer
4 Contents
1. Introduction ... 7
1.2 Problem statement ... 11
1.3 Research question ... 12
1.4 Academic and practical relevance ... 12
1.5 Research Design ... 13 2. Literature Review ... 14 2.1 Introduction ... 14 2.2 Stakeholder engagement ... 14 2.3 Employee engagement ... 16 2.4 CSR Implementation models ... 21 2.5 Conclusion ... 32 3. Methodology ... 33 3.1 Introduction ... 33 3.2 Research Approach ... 33 3.3 Interview selection ... 34
3.4 Data collection and analysis ... 35
4. Results ... 37
4.1 Introduction ... 37
4.2 Recognizing the role of leadership ... 38
4.3 Creating enthusiasm for and credibility of CSR ... 39
4.4 Rewarding people that create CSR successes ... 42
4.5 Other findings ... 43
5. Discussion and conclusion ... 46
5.1 Introduction ... 46
5.2 Discussion ... 46
5.3 Conclusions ... 49
5.4 Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 50
6. References ... 52
Appendix A: Overview of companies interviewed ... 59
5 List of Tables Nr. Name Page 1. Propositions 37 List of Figures Nr. Name Page
1. Stakeholder typology (Mitchell et al., 1997) 9
2. Motivation and Commitment (Locke, 2004; Collier & Estebann, 2007).
19 3. Sustainability Issue Management (SIM) Model (Macagno,
2013)
22 4. Seven patterns of CSR initiative adoption (Yuan et al 2011) 24 5. Illustration of the conceptual sustainable management
system framework ‘Sus5’ (Maas & Reniers, 2014)
25 6. Proposed integrative framework for designing and
implementing CSR (Maon et al., 2008)
27 7. Critical success factors in the CSR process (Maon et al.,
2008)
6 Abstract
These days, global environmental change is becoming increasingly apparent and businesses
are acting responsibly to issues of sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a topic that is closely related to a company’s stakeholders. Employees possess characteristics
that validate their role as stakeholder. If employees are committed to CSR, the companies
should in theory perform better than those that do not. This thesis addresses the need for a
qualitative study on employee commitment to CSR. This has lead to the following research
question: How does a firm create commitment for CSR activities from employees at
operational levels? This research commences by reviewing the current relevant academic
literature on the topic of stakeholder theory, stakeholder engagement, employee engagement
and CSR implementation models. Building on the existent theories, a qualitative inductive
research approach is performed by interviewing eleven CSR managers, all of which represent
different business sectors and have strong CSR reputations. Based on the literature, three
main aspects in creating employee commitment have been discovered: leadership, creating
enthusiasm for CSR and rewarding good CSR behavior. This was corroborated by the
information yielded by the interviews. Support from the top tier of the company is a crucial
element for employee engagement. Employees at operational levels require simple and
practically tailored messages about the way in which they can contribute to the company’s
targets. However it is not necessary for these employees to see this as part of the company’s
CSR policy. Reward systems for CSR are not necessary at the employee level. For
companies that outsource their operational activity, strict regulations must be enforced to
ensure that the outsourced company complies with the company’s code of conduct. More
research on the topic of employee commitment to CSR would be valuable, and a
7 1. Introduction
Globalization of the world economy has induced a period of tremendous economic growth
over the past half century.Critics of globalization often use the lens of “sustainable
development” to assess the current state of global development. Sustainable development is a
type of development that may enable the current generation to meet its environmental, social,
and economic needs, without inhibiting the ability of future generations to meet theirs (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Sharma & Lee, 2011). With climate
change, biodiversity loss, global water crisis and many other manifestations of global
environmental change becoming increasingly problematic, there is a widespread and
increasing conception amongst both economists and society at large that economics must
address issues of sustainability (Baumgärtner & Quaas, 2010).
The concept of sustainability is in sharp contrast with the dominant market logic that calls for
a focus on the maximization of wealth. The changing rules are significant today, as
corporations operating in the current atmosphere are among the world’s most dominant and
most powerful institutions (Waddock, 2008). The new multi– bottom-line orientation calls
for an array of social, sustainability, and stakeholder issues to be embedded into companies’
business models. The emerging institutional infrastructure on corporate responsibility is
creating a new context in which stakeholders hold companies responsible for their impacts. In
the long term, the new rules redefine what companies must do to sustain their legitimacy and
become accepted social actors (Waddock, 2008).
For a company, the starting point of creating shared value at the triple bottom line is to
identify the societal needs, benefits, and harms that are or could be associated with the firm’s
products. These opportunities are not static; they change constantly as technology evolves,
economies develop and societal priorities shift. Ongoing exploration of societal needs will
8
traditional markets, and will allow them to recognize the potential of new markets that they
have previously overlooked (Porter &Kramer, 2011).
It is essentially impossible to discuss Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) without
mentioning the role and importance of stakeholders (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2007). Freeman
(1984) defined stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the organization’s objectives”. Managers continually encounter demands from
multiple stakeholder groups (customers, employees, suppliers, community groups,
governments, and some stockholders, in particular institutional shareholders) to devote
resources to CSR (Freeman, 1984). With the vast amount of conflicting goals and objectives,
the definition of CSR is not always clear. In this paper, CSR is defined as actions that appear
to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law
(McWillams & Siegel, 2001, Harrison & Freeman, 2013).
According to R.E. Freeman (1999), firms must devote attention to key stakeholder
relationships, so as to maximize stakeholder value. Stakeholders can be categorized in various
ways. The most commonly used method is described by Mitchell et al. (1997), in which
9
Figure 1: Stakeholder typology (Mitchell et al., 1997)
One relevant stakeholder that must always be included is the employees within an
organization. According to the analysis conducted by Mitchell et al. (1997), employees
possess – to a greater or lesser extent – the three characteristics that validate their role as
stakeholder: legitimacy, urgency and power (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2007). By definition, a
stakeholder that possesses both power and legitimacy will form a member of a firm's
dominant coalition. This is due to the to the legitimate claims they have upon the firm and
their ability to act on these claims, however they may choose never to act on them. It may be
clear that the expectations of any stakeholders (who are perceived by managers to be powerful
and legitimate) will be of great value and importance to managers. When such a stakeholder's
10
that claim. The most common occurrence is likely to entail the movement of a dominant
stakeholder into the ‘definitive’ category (Mitchell et al., 1997).
Despite this logic, the employee has received relatively little attention in CSR literature, when
compared to other stakeholder groups (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2007; McShane & Cunningham,
2012). Given the fact that employees are essentially the face of the organization and are expected to act as ambassadors for the organization’s CSR program, this is an interesting
manifestation (Collier & Esteban, 2007; McShane & Cunningham, 2012). Employees perform
a critical role in shaping the organization’s relationship with external stakeholders and, by
extension, other stakeholders’ perceptions of the organization and its CSR program (McShane
& Cunningham, 2012).
In the research on the effects of CSR activities on employees, even less attention has been
devoted to the differences amongst employee types in relation to CSR, essentially
presupposing that this group's expectations, views, and attitudes are homogeneous (Rodrigo &
Arenas, 2007). According to Turban & Greening (1996), a positive CSR reputation can
generate attention from future employees. Several studies have also indicated a positive
relationship between the ethical climate in a firm and job satisfaction of employees (Sims &
Keon, 1997; Ambec & Lanoie, 2008). They have furthermore elucidated that the cost of labor
will decrease the cost of illness, absenteeism, recruitment, and turnover when a firm maintains
a positive CSR reputation. However, in these studies, too, no distinction has been made
11
1.2 Problem statement
Although much has been published on the topic of CSR, one underutilized approach to
understanding some of the potential costs and benefits of CSR is to investigate its impact on
the employees. Research often addresses how CSR affects important stakeholder groups,
investors (Graves & Waddock, 1994; Bauman & Skitka, 2012) and consumers in particular
(Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Bauman & Skitka, 2012), but tends to neglect employees
(Aguilera et al., 2007; Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Bauman & Skitka, 2012). This gap in
knowledge is surprising, given that employees’ attitudes and behavior blatantly have
far-reaching consequences for the overall success of organizations (e.g., Chambers, Foulon,
Handfield-Jones, Hankin, & Michaels, 1998, Lawler, 1992; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer &
Allen, 1997; Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982; Pfeffer, 1994). If CSR has the ability to attract
talent, increase commitment, encourage organization citizenship behavior, or decrease
turnover, firms that engage in CSR should perform better than those that do not (Porter &
Kramer, 2006). Understanding employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility may
help answer outstanding questions about the potential effects of corporate social responsibility
on firms (Bauman & Skitka, 2012). Employee commitment has received little consideration in
academic literature (Rauva & Nurukka, 2010). The rare instances at which they are discussed,
they are often perceived asa homogeneous group, in that their expectations, views, and
attitudes are the expected to be the same (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2007). This is short-sighted, as
there are various types of employees, working at different levels within firms. This study will
focus on the employees that work at operational levels.
From personal experience, not all employees at the operational level seem to understand the
need for CSR. This raises the question on how, and to what extent, these employees’
commitment to CSR activities can be achieved. It must furthermore be explored whether or
12
opposes the conception that all persons should feel the need to be socially responsible; in this
sense, it has become the elephant in the room that people chose to ignore.
1.3 Research question
How does a firm create commitment for CSR activities from employees at operational levels?
Subsequent questions
How and to which extent has the literature paid attention to different employee groups, in
particular employees at operational levels?
What are the important distinctions between different kinds of employees in relation to the
implementation of CSR?
In which ways have the implementation models incorporated employee commitment?
1.4 Academic and practical relevance
This research enriches current literature on CSR by supplying insight into the field of
employee commitment, a topic that has not previously been extensively researched. As the
next chapter will elaborate employees have not had a major role in implementation models for
CSR. This research will continue along the lines of Maon et al.’s (2008) paper, where they
used a similar method to examine CSR implementation. This research will focus on lower
level employees at operational levels. This is a specific employee group that has received
little academic research as is shown in the paper by Rodrigo and Arenas (2007).
In addition to being relevant to the academic literature on CSR, this research has significant
practical relevance. For firms, it offers a deeper understanding about the way in which
engagement from employees at lower levels may be increased. This will supply firms with
better methods to adapt their CSR policies and strategies, so that it suits the needs and
13
1.5 Research Design
The research questions presented above will be answered by means of qualitative research.
Eleven in-depth interviews are conducted with active CSR firms and CSR frontrunners from
different industries in the Netherlands; either the head or a senior member of the CSR team is
interviewed. The data collected is triangulated with information extracted from the most
14 2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
On the basis of the current stakeholder theory, the need for stakeholder engagement will be
explained in this chapter. Next, the effects that employees – regarded as important
stakeholders – (can) have on CSR policies will be highlighted. Employee engagement will be
explained on the basis of the different aspects of the construct commitment. Finally, several
CSR implementation models will be analyzed according the role that the employees have in
them. In researching relevant literature, several propositions will be formulated that will be
researched in this study, the outcomes of which can be found in chapter 4.
2.2 Stakeholder engagement
As mentioned in the previous chapter, stakeholders fulfill an important role in terms of CSR.
CSR is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns into their
business operations and into their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis
(Commission of the European Communities, 2001; Dahlsrud, 2008). Dahlsrud (2008) has
presented stakeholders as one of five dimensions in the most used CSR definitions.
Companies must perform well and undertake socially desirable actions, including the
distribution of economic, social or political benefits to the stakeholder groups from which
they derive the power required for their survival and growth (Shocker & Sethi, 1973;
Prado-Lorenzo et al, 2009). In the last few years, more attention has been paid to brainstorming
about what precisely it entails to engage stakeholders (Johnson-Cramer et al. 2003). In other
words, in addition to considering which actions firms must take or refrain from taking in order
to meet moral standards, attention is additionally being paid to the relationships that firms
15
As Freeman’s (1984) definition – mentioned in the introduction – suggests, the relationship
between the organization and its stakeholders is a two-way relationship, as such reflecting the
interdependence of firms and stakeholders (Cheney & Christensen, 2001; Gao & Zhang,
2006). It justifies the necessity of engaging stakeholders in an organization’s decision-making
process (Gao & Zhang, 2006).
Stakeholder engagement is understood as a practice undertaken by the organization to
positively involve its stakeholders in the organizational activities (Greenwood, 2007).
Engaging stakeholders in developmental exercises is required to enhance mutual
understanding of sustainability and to push the limits of cognitive, moral and emotional
development (Factor, 2003; Waddock, 2001; Gao & Zhang, 2006). Stakeholder engagement
is critical in developing, albeit limited, both semi-proactive and proactive stances towards
sustainability, and may be the sole influence of reactive companies (Factor, 2003; Gao &
Zhang, 2006).
Stakeholder engagement is traditionally regarded as corporate responsibility in action. Indeed,
some literature assumes that the more an organization engages with its stakeholders, the more
it is socially responsible (Greenwood, 2007). It is no longer sufficient to simply promote and
propound the development of triple-bottom line performances, at least not without a clear
understanding of how stakeholders can best be engaged. Moreover, engaging stakeholders
through dialogue does not entail giving a specific stakeholder group/groups unrestrained
decision-making authority. Dialogue-based empowerment requires the sharing of information
and ideas, as well as negotiating constructively between stakeholders and corporations. (Gao
& Zhang, 2006). It is posited that stakeholder engagement is a morally neutral practice, as it
may underpin exchange relationships based entirely on rational factors and devoid of moral
factors. Stakeholder engagement may be used in either a moral or immoral way, but is not
16
There are various ways and levels of engaging stakeholders, and stakeholder engagement can
entail different ideas in different contexts (Gao & Zhang, 2001; Gao & Zhang, 2006).
Engaging stakeholders through constructive dialogue can facilitate the shift towards
sustainability. Legislation and market mechanisms are limited in that they largely ignore the
internal impulse for change (Gao & Zhang, 2006). They additionally enable particular
stakeholder groups to have more authority than others, which could create hierarchical control
and bureaucratic barriers between stakeholder groups (Gao & Zhang, 2006). Cheney &
Christensen (2001) concluded that a continuous, genuine, two-way dialogue between
organizations and their stakeholders constitutes the most ideal solution for the management of
complex issues that contemporary society faces (Gao & Zhang, 2006). A monologue centered
on communicating self-interest and aligning the other’s interest to one’s own can be
considered as communicating to, rather than with. In contrast, ‘genuine’ dialogue is geared
towards mutual education, joint problem-solving and relationship-building (Gao & Zhang,
2006). It is advisable for firms to initiate and facilitate respectful, honest and productive
multilateral communication with their stakeholders. This is wise in that stakeholders
constitute the firms, and the relationship networks of which these stakeholders form part
constitute the communities and markets within which these firms conduct their business
(Noland & Phillips, 2010).
2.3 Employee engagement
Engaging employees by valuing them and empowering them as individuals is a prime
example of how firms can be socially responsible (Greenwood, 2007, Brown & Dacin, 1997;
Kim et al., 2010).
As mentioned in the introduction, employees are identified as the firm’s primary stakeholder
group (Phillips, 1990; Greenwood, 2007, Mitchell et al., 1997), as they directly contribute to
17
stakeholders, who’s claims should be respected (Mitchell et al., 1997). Defined in terms of a
power to influence, employees have a great ability to aid or hinder the attainment of the firm’s
objectives (Kaler, 2002). According to Olander, there are in essence two categories of
stakeholders – internal stakeholders (influencers), who are actively involved in project
execution, and external stakeholders (claimants) (Olander, 2007; Mathur et al., 2008).
Olander’s theory would define employees as ‘influencer’ stakeholders (Kaler, 2002). As such,
managers must pay attention not only to those who have a claim on the firm’s services,but
additionally to those who have the ability to influence the attainment of the organization’s
goals (Mathur et al., 2008).
Employees are key in ensuring that CSR becomes embedded in the organization (Jenkins,
2006; Davies & Crane, 2010). Employee engagement can improve an employee’s feeling of
belonging within their organization (Jones 2010; Kim et al. 2010). De Roeck & Delobbe
(2012)’s findings suggest that perceived CSR can reinforce employees’ organizational
identification, through its effect on organizational trust; this should in turn foster employees’
supportive attitudes and behaviors – such as their role of ambassador – towards external
stakeholders (Crane & Matten, 2004, Jones 2010; Riketta 2005; De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012).
Lindgreen, et al., (2012) have supplemented this by claiming that those employees who
possess certain attributes, the so-called ‘high potentials’, are attractive CSR change agents.
Change agents employ tactics such as persuasion and vigilance to champion an issue and
drive change (Beatty & Gordon 1991; Lindgreen, et al., 2012). Employees with strong social
competencies are likely to understand the relevance of their relationships with different
stakeholders, and to know how goals may be achieved through efficient communication.
Social competencies derive from social awareness, willingness to listen, recognition of
different perspectives, and openness to dilemmas (Lindgreen, et al., 2012). Rauva & Nurukka
18
otherwise ignore environmental considerations by being too engaged by their work. To
encourage environmentally active employees to share their ideas, it is advisable to assign
change agents to each department; employees may be unwilling to approach colleagues
directly with environment-related suggestions (Rauva & Nurukka, 2010). The effective
delivery of corporate social and environmental responsibility initiatives is dependent on
employee responsiveness. In order for employees to deliver on CSR requirements, they must
initially have the motivation to do so, and in second instance be committed to overcoming the
challenges and attaining the goals of responsible corporate behavior (Collier & Estebann,
2007). Motivation is the primary prerequisite; commitment reinforces and embeds it, as
depicted in figure 2 (Collier & Estebann, 2007). Locke (1997) has defined motivation as the “energizing force that induces action,” in this case action by employees that in some way
derives from personal needs and/or values (Collier & Estebann, 2007). Goal setting is a key
element in motivation; without a defined goal, measuring achievement is not possible;
without the possibility of identifying achievement, there will be no standard for assessing
satisfaction (Latham 2004; Collier & Estebann, 2007). In Locke’s model of motivation, the
efficacy of actions designed to achieve defined goal(s) is arguably determined by effort,
persistence and task strategies (Collier & Estebann, 2007). The persistence of motivation is
sustained by commitment. Commitment is “a force that binds an individual to a course of
action that is of relevance to a particular target” (Meyer & Herscovitch 2001; Collier &
Estebann, 2007). It emphasizes attachment to the employing organization, including its goals
19
Figure 2: Motivation and Commitment (Locke, 2004; Collier & Estebann, 2007).
Kim et al. (2010) have found both CSR associations and CSR participation to be associated
with employee-company identification, which in turn creates commitment to the company.
The focus of this paper is on employees at the lower levels within organizations. Rodrigo and
Arenas (2007) have identified these employees as ‘dissident employees’: workers who are
interested to know why money is dedicated to CSR programs rather than increased salary
scales, or in other ways offered to workers rather than being spent it on intangible or external
practices. They regard their work simply as a source of income that enables their survival;
they are generally not interested in the social significance of that which they do. They tend to
maintain that although they have a definite sense of social justice, they are focused on
themselves or on their immediate group. They seek the benefits of social justice but do not see
the need to contribute to it, as they already feel socially marginalized or disadvantaged
themselves, i.e.: they do not regard it their ‘duty’. They tend to not identify with the
20
them, at times even less. The implementation of CSR policies often depresses and frustrates
them or may lead them to rebel against the company; as a result, they are less productive. The
worker described above is generally found at (one of) the lowest level of the organization
(Rodrigo & Arenas, 2007).
Rauva and Nurukka (2010) have indicated that the employees whose work does not involve
large-scale environmental considerations, felt they could not contribute to the company’s CSR
policy. They require simple, practical messages from the management about what they can
do for the environment (Rauva & Nurukka, 2010). As such, it is useful to tailor messages to
the various groups within the organization (Rauva & Nurukka, 2010).
Other types of employees identified by Rodrigo and Arenas (2007) are the ‘indifferent
employee’ and the ‘committed employee.’ The former is not oriented towards social concerns,
but rather towards the development of his or her own career. Rather than identifying with the
organization, such employees identify with the direct task in which they are engaged: their
aim is to be recognized as good workers so that they may climb the organizational ladder or to
be recognized in the market. Thus, the implementation of CSR practices by the company does
not raise or lower their organizational commitment, which is of an overall intermediate
intensity. Employees such as these generally sit at middle and high professional levels within
the organization and have realistic chances for promotion (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2007).
The ‘committed employee’, on account of his or her personal characteristics (studies or
experiences), is significantly concerned with social welfare and social justice and receives the
CSR practices implemented by the organization with great enthusiasm. Due to the
considerable sense of importance that they associate with their tasks, together with the
organizational identity achieved, they work beyond the objectives; as such, their average
21
organization, they are most likely to be the top executives, who are graduate professionals or
who have received technical training (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2007).
2.4 CSR Implementation models
In this section, various CSR implementation models will be examined on the basis of the role
that the employees play in them. To provide an overview of the current CSR implementation
literature, four models will be examined: the SIM model by Macagno (2013), Seven patterns
of CSR initiative adoption by Yuan et al. (2011), the integrative framework for designing and
implementing CSR by Maon et al. (2008) and the Sus5 framework by Maas & Reniers
(2014).
The SIM model by Macagno (2013) illustrates the importance of stakeholders in solving
sustainability issues. The seven patterns of CSR initiative adoption by Yuan et al. (2011)
sketches a picture of different ways in which CSR may be integrated into the organizations.
The Sus5 framework Maas & Reniers (2014) shows that employee engagement is essential in
implementing CSR. Finally the integrative framework for designing and implementing CSR
by Maon et al. (2008) provides an overview of the process of implementing CSR and
mentions the critical factors in the CSR implementing process at different levels in the
organization.
SIM Model
The SIM model (figure 3) was constructed following the research on implementing CSR in
organizations (Macagno 2007; Macagno, 2013). In this model managing CSR is problem
22
Stakeholders play three roles:
(1) Creating urgency to trigger firms to act (DiMaggio & Powell 1983; Jawahar &
McLaughlin 2001).
(2) Defining or identifying frameworks (for addressing issues) that shape behavior (Potoski & Prakash 2004). Stakeholders “help frame the problem, determine goals, and implement the
desired change” (Batie 2008). Partnering with key stakeholders (e.g.: government or civil
society) to solve problems contributes to the ‘moral legitimacy’ of companies
(Vidaver-Cohen & Brønn 2008).
(3) Evaluating outcomes (Macagno, 2013).
Macagnos’ 2007 study found that the more an organization depends on its brand for success,
the more responsive it is to stakeholder pressure. Stakeholders are seen as the ultimate judges
of value (Macagno, 2013). The article highlights the need to recognize value differences
among stakeholders while defining success for CSR issues. Internally, a company needs to
acquire more information by facilitating learning among employees and enhance cooperation
by getting internal parties to work together to implement reductions plans (Macagno, 2013).
Even though employees play a significant role in the SIM model for implementing CSR, the
employees are seen as a homogenous group. Though educating employees and stimulating
cooperation internally is mentioned, it is not further elaborated on how to do so.
23
Patterns of CSR initiative adoption
Yuan et al. (2011) have argued that a mere focus on the ‘external fit’ issue ignores the
importance of achieving both internal consistency with core business routines and coherence
between CSR practices. A purely external focus may weaken the internal fit thus reducing CSR’s potential to contribute to business performance (Yuan et al., 2011).
The authors have furthermore found the main challenge in CSR to be how to fuse CSR
routines with existing core routines, the latter of which may have been established with no
consideration for CSR. Yuan et al.’s attention to process aspects of integrating recurring CSR
initiatives and prevailing business routines complements the strategic perspective on CSR as
developed by Porter and Kramer (2006); they advocate devoting more attention to internal fit
than focusing solely on external consistency with societal stakeholder demands, of which the
SIM model is guilty.
The authors have identified seven patterns of CSR adoption: born CSR oriented, patching,
thickening, positioning, relabeling, trimming and cooperating (figure 5) (Yuan et al., 2011).
The second pattern – patching – in particular confirms the need for internal change. Patching,
or creating new CSR core routines, refers to building CSR elements that interact with
numerous current organizational routines and/or exert major influence on future
organizational practices. Creating new CSR core routines typically includes changes in
organizational processes, as well as in competences in various parts of the value chain (Yuan
et al., 2011).The article mentions that the patching process tends to be slow, as it may require
24
Figure 4: Seven patterns of CSR initiative adoption (Yuan et al 2011)
The purpose of institutionalizing CSR core values is to encourage employees to consider
systematically social and environmental parameters when making business decisions (Laufer
and Robertson, 1997; Yuan et al., 2011). In this way, firms create CSR core practices that
interact with core business practices and may contribute to organizational redesign, thereby
affecting both future decisions and organizational performance (Yuan et al., 2011).Yuan et al.
say successful implementation of CSR routines at operational levels may require clear
performance measures and related incentives to enhance employees’ commitment, which
extends beyond simply institutionalizing CSR elements as core values in the organization
25
Sus5 framework
Maas and Reniers (2014) have proposed a conceptual CSR framework on the basis of the
recently published umbrella guideline ISO 26000 (figure 6). This CSR model for practice
extends beyond the limitations of traditional PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) cycles. By
applying interconnected soft and hard factors as building blocks within a circular framework,
the gap between the execution of loose sustainable initiatives and the application of a
sustainability balanced scorecard should ideally be reduced (Maas & Reniers, 2014). Maas &
Reniers claim sustainable results depend on the efforts exerted by management, stakeholders
and employees (Cramer, 2005; Maas & Reniers, 2014). The presence of an extended level of
commitment and motivation amongst these three clusters of people – in order to guarantee
continuous sustainable progress – is indispensable (Maas & Reniers, 2014).
Figure 5: Illustration of the conceptual sustainable management system framework ‘Sus5’ (Maas & Reniers,
26
The interaction between management and stakeholders should result in the choice of a limited
amount of strategic pillars, which must be interpreted as the core issues. The
CSR-pillars will form the foundations of the CSR-story (Maas & Reniers, 2014). This establishes
and clarifies the limits of a CSR-policy and enables an organization to embrace all its
sustainable efforts in one explicit and affirmative corporate social agenda (Porter & Kramer,
2006; Maas & Reniers, 2014).
Once the CSR approach has been chosen and established, it must be communicated vertically
down to the junior managers and the operational level, as well as horizontally across the
different business units (Cheng et al., 2010; Maas & Reniers, 2014). Since the internal
understanding of the content and the internal commitment to CSR are crucial drivers for
increased sustainable performance, Human Resource Management (HRM) can play a vital role in implementing a ‘sustainability mindset’ in all types of organizations (ISO, 2010,
Ehnert & Harry, 2012; Maas & Reniers, 2014). A company’s recruitment process can, for
example, be established in such a way that the ‘sustainable mentality’ of potential employees
becomes a distinguishing parameter. Employees must feel that they hold the key to
operational fulfillment of the chosen strategy (Maas & Reniers, 2014). Designing a
motivational programs or suggestion systems, which would enable employees to develop and
communicate their ideas is thereby recommended (Maas & Reniers, 2014). Sustainability criteria must be embedded in each employee’s goals, job responsibilities and performance
incentives (Ceres, 2010; Maas & Reniers, 2014).
Maas & Reneirs realize embedding sustainability as a core business activity within the
organization requires managers to consider the potential differences in employees´ varying
perceptions of the CSR agenda; different perceptions may be induced by difference in culture,
27
on each individual may lead to local and internal resistance, requiring the need for a
simultaneous bottom up approach (Kissida, 2007; Maas & Reniers, 2014).
Framework for designing and implementing CSR
Maon et al. (2008) have created a framework for designing and implementing CSR, in which
they have combined planned change theories with limited research on implementing a CSR
orientation. As depicted in figure 4, they have named four important stages: sensitize,
unfreeze, move and refreeze. The four stages incorporate nine steps: raising CSR awareness
within the organization, assessing corporate purpose in a societal context, establishing a
working definition and vision for CSR, assessing the current CSR status, developing an
integrated CSR strategic plan, implementing the CSR integrated strategic plan, maintaining
internal and external communication, evaluating CSR-related strategies and communication,
and institutionalizing CSR policy (Maon et al., 2008).
Figure 6: Proposed integrative framework for designing and implementing CSR (Maon et al., 2008)
The motivation behind moment when an organization chooses to anticipate or respond to a
28
by Maon et al. and Macagno (2007). In the implementation model by Macagno the drivers for
organizational change are external. In Maon et al. (2008) model, a manager’s personal values
are also mentioned as a reason to become socially responsible.
Yet Maon et al. have additionally defined individual drivers that appear to be value-based and
that highlight the CEO’s role in orienting the ethical norms of the organization (Agle et al.,
1999; Waldman and Siegel, 2005; Maon et al., 2008) and the presence of employees’ values
in the workplace (Robertson, 1991; Maon et al., 2008).
Critical factors in the implementation process
Maon et al’s framework considers both top-down processes (top manager awareness, which
influences CSR strategy and implementation) and bottom-up processes (awareness of
employees and workers, who induce their employers to include CSR practices). Figure 7
shows the critical success factors in the CSR process; the model assumes that employees at
different levels have varied roles in the implementation of CSR. Top management determines
the CSR direction and strategy; middle management and employees at the operational level
must practically implement the strategy (Maon et al., 2008). Regardless of how well CSR
programs are designed and managed, no organization will succeed in fulfilling its ethical
commitments and evoking internal and external trust without strong steering from the top tier
(Collier & Estebann, 2007). A strong leader may create a vision for the future, in line with the
demands from the environment; this leader must communicate this vision in an inspiring way
so that employees act accordingly (Maon et al., 2008). Charismatic leaders are capable of
forming a collective identity based on appealing values that extend beyond individuals’
self-interests and the greater organization. In line with CSR, such values may include an appeal to
the greater needs of stakeholder groups and the good of society. Accordingly, followers will
associate their organizational identity with the greater good of society and as such, become
29
If employees are not properly engaged, they could come to form a source of the problem.
They are considered the organization’s human face, act as ambassadors and advocates, and
are the sources of new ideas and information (Maon et al., 2008). Therefore, functional
communication about the strategy and implementation CSR must exist between top
management and the employees. Engaging employees in the implementation requires a focus
on awareness and ensuring that they understand the context and background of the organization’s CSR approach, including the motivation, reasons for adopting a specific
approach, relevance to the organization, how it aligns with existing organizational objectives,
potential changes to current approaches, and other implications (Maon et al., 2008).
Figure 7: Critical success factors in the CSR process (Maon et al., 2008)
One of the biggest challenges for managers – particularly in large, multinational companies – is to increase their employees’ proximity to their CSR initiatives, thereby moving them from
unawareness to active involvement (Bhattacharya, Sen & Korschun, 2007) Employees,
especially those who work in remote locations, often feel unsure about the literal and the
psychosocial center of the company (e.g.: headquarters). Naturally, these employees have a
30
opportunities to connect with others around the company (Bhattacharya, Sen & Korschun,
2007). At a more abstract level, such employees feel a sense of unity with the company
through their involvement in the collective effort to make a global difference (Bhattacharya,
Sen & Korschun, 2007).
One of the most important findings yielded by Bhattacharya, Sen & Korschun’s (2007)
research is the need for companies to place their employees at the center of the CSR efforts,
empowering them as co-creators of effective CSR strategies. In other words, companies need
to involve their employees in the planning, design, and implementation of CSR programs,
turning them into active participants rather than passive onlookers in the creation of the CSR
component of the job-product (Bhattacharya, Sen & Korschun, 2007).
By involving employees in discussions of CSR implementation, the organization ensures that
this stakeholder group develops a sense of ownership of and pride in its organization’s CSR activities (Government of Canada, 2006; Maon et al., 2008). Employees’ CSR training may
additionally create awareness and aid them in understanding how CSR issues affect them and
their immediate environment (Maon et al., 2008). Regular progress updates increase the
enthusiasm about a CSR program. Alternatively, organizations can provide incentives, such as
rewarding employees for relevant suggestions and incorporating CSR performance elements
into their job descriptions, to motivate employees to accomplish CSR-related achievements;
similarly, they may be punished for non-conformance (Maon et al., 2008). Only when
incentives are compatible with a more comprehensive view of stakeholder expectations and
contributions, managers’ values will change. This, in turn, enables the organizations to
increase their sustainable organizational wealth (Sachs & Ruhli, 2005; Maon et al., 2008).
A critical psychological phenomenon underlying employees’ positive responses to their
31
extent to which employees feel that their sense of self overlaps with their sense of the
company. Employees that identify strongly with their employer view the company’s successes
as their own, and incorporate characteristics of the company into their own self-concept (i.e.:
how they view themselves). In essence, companies and employees do not agree on precisely
who is making a difference through CSR. The majority of the power is maintained by the
company, leaving the employees feeling under empowered, unmotivated, and at times
disenchanted and disengaged (Bhattacharya, Sen & Korschun, 2007). Companies must
encourage the active participation of employees in their CSR programs (Bhattacharya, Sen &
Korschun, 2007).
For employees to commit to ethical behavior and the upholding of organizational ethical
policies, they must be reassured in two ways: first, the organization must abide by its
espoused ethical policies, i.e.: procedural justice prevails; second, those who violate ethical
standards must be disciplined accordingly, i.e.: retributive justice prevails (Trevino & Weaver
2001; Collier & Estebann, 2007). If employees exert the effort to be ethical, they must be
assured that others will do the same (Collier & Estebann, 2007).
First, the company must maintain clear, open, continuous, two-way communication with its
employees in the CSR domain, facilitating the interchange of ideas both vertically and
horizontally (across employee groups). Second, and more generally, it must provide the
requisite guidance and resources to its employees so that the CSR plans will be effectively
implemented. This entails going beyond merely allowing CSR involvement on company time;
instead, employee groups must be aided to fully integrate the CSR efforts into a coherent,
complete job-product. Needless to say, enabling employees to make a difference in their
chosen CSR domain presupposes the company’s provision of adequate financial and material
resources. Corporate social marketing initiatives (Kotler & Lee 2004) are particularly
32
allow the company to reap returns from its CSR investment not only through its employees,
but additionally through the stakeholder group that the CSR effort ultimately targets. Finally,
companies interested in a co-created CSR experience must recognize and reward employees
for their CSR successes in ways that are not extraneous to, but fully integrated with, the
reward structure implicit in their job-products (Bhattacharya, Sen & Korschun, 2007).
2.5 Conclusion
Considerable academic literature exists on the topic of CSR and stakeholder theory. However,
when revising stakeholder engagement, more specifically employee engagement and
commitment (particularly) in combination with CSR, a gap in the literature becomes apparent.
The reviewed literature has lead to the following propositions:
The role of leadership is critical in implementing CSR and engaging employees; Lower level or dissident employees require specifically tailored messages about CSR; Based on the type of CSR implementation pattern, there are different levels of
engagement;
To stimulate sustainable behavior a reward system must be in place;
In order for employees to be engaged, they must be involved in creating the CSR policy.
In order to properly structure the data that will be gathered from the interviews, the
propositions and research questions are divided into the three categories derived from Maon
et al.’s (2008) critical success factors in the CSR process at managerial/operational level. This
is one of the few theories that takes the operational level into account during the
33 3. Methodology
3.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, the recent literature on stakeholder engagement was explored, in
addition to employee engagement and CSR implementation methods. In this chapter, the
research design, the sample, data collection and data analysis will be presented.
The ultimate aim of this research is to supplement the current literature on CSR by providing
insight into the field of employee commitment. This is a field that has not yet been
extensively researched. The study will furthermore focus on lower level employees, i.e.: at
operational levels, an important sector that is often neglected in the research.
3.2 Research Approach
In reviewing the literature on CSR, a gap was discovered in the theory on employee
engagement, as well as another gap in the literature on lower level employees. This resulted in
the following research question: How does a firm create commitment for CSR activities from
employees at operational levels?
To answer this question, a qualitative inductive research approach is taken. Induction involves
the development of a theory by analyzing the collected data (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). This
study is an exploratory study, as it aims to seek new insights and to asses phenomena in a new
light. In this, an attempt will be made to further develop the theory of CSR (Saunders &
Lewis, 2012, Saunders et al. 2009).
Multiple cases will be studies, as Yin (2003) has claimed that multiple case studies have a
preference over single case studies (Saunders et al. 2009). Each organization is studied as a
whole, rendering this a holistic case study (Saunders et al., 2009). The qualitative case study
approach is particularly useful when concepts and contexts are poorly defined; it enables the
34
further enhancing the literature on employee engagement (Blaikie, 1993; Eisenhardt, 1989;
Maon et al., 2008).
3.3 Interview selection
After the research approach was chosen, the criteria for the sample were established. All
cases represent different business sectors and have strong reputations as a result of their
investments in CSR.
Firms were selected on basis of the following criteria: A relatively small management and large operation
At least 1000 employees, all working in the Netherlands
Definite affiliation with CSR
Firms must have a history in which CSR did not constitute a primary goal
Firms must publish an annual report on sustainability
To ensure the companies’ affiliation with CSR, only those companies who have been on the
Dow Jones Sustainability Index or were associated with MVO Nederland were selected.
MVO Nederland is an organization established by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. To
become a part of it, firms must have CSR ambitions and seek a subtle balance between
people, planet and profit in all their business decisions (website MVO Nederland). The annual
reporting on CSR can be either part of the company’s annual report or a separate
sustainability report. Companies were chosen if they did not have a history of being
CSR-oriented; as Yuan et al. (2011) indicated, firms that are by nature CSR-oriented have made an
effort to gain focus and commitment of specific resources in order to establish CSR routines
at or around its founding. This makes the struggle to engage employees less eminent, as the
CRS was embedded from the start.
To gain access to the companies, the networks of both the researcher and the thesis supervisor
35
emailed. From the 23 managers, 11 agreed to partake in an interview. One firm claimed that
they were unable to provide an accurate indication of the engagement in the organization due
to a large reorganization occurring at that moment. Three firms declined due to a lack of time.
The remaining managers either failed to respond or had switched positions and thereby their
email address. Appendix A contains a table of organizations that contributed to the research.
In addition to the names of the companies, the amount of employees (within the Netherlands),
and the sustainability ambition have been included in the table.
3.4 Data collection and analysis
The data explored in this research was interview data (triangulated by the latest
sustainability or annual report) and any extra information provided by the firms or
mentioned on their websites. Interviewed in particular were senior managers or
employees responsible for the organizations’ CSR programs. In addition to interviews
with the firms named in Appendix A, a session at Unilever on engaging employees was
observed as a way of gaining extra data.
After evaluating the responses to the email, 11 interviews were planned. The interviews were
semi-structured: a list of themes and questions was constructed beforehand, yet the structure
varies per interview. This gives the opportunity to ‘probe’ for answers and where necessary,
to explain or build on the participants’ responses (Saunders et al., 2009). The duration of each
interview was between 30 – 60 minutes and has been recorded with a specification mobile
application.
Due to scheduling difficulties, some of the interviews were conducted by telephone, others
face-to-face. Telephone interviews allow the interviewer to make contact with participants
with whom it would otherwise been impossible, given the distance and time required
(Saunders et al., 2009). The location of the interviews both by telephone and in person were
36
In the case of a face-to-face interview, a location was chosen that entailed the least amount
of external noise and disturbance (Saunders et al., 2009).
After the interview, the notes are transcribed as soon as possible (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
Data sampling was used, meaning that only the relevant information was transcribed
(Saunders et al., 2009). To ensure that no relevant data was excluded, interview recordings
were listened to multiple times and corrected if parts were missing. As the interviews took
place in the Netherlands with Dutch-speaking participants, the interviews were logically
conducted in Dutch. The transcriptions of the interviews are also in Dutch, so as to ensure
that none of the evidence is compromised. In recording the results, the quotes are translated
into English.
The transcripts will be coded, meaning that the interviews were be labeled according to
pre-established labels. For this, the program MAXqda2 was used. This offers several
advantages, especially in terms of increased transparency and methodological rigor
(Saunders et al., 2009). Relevant text fragments were selected from the transcripts and
were coded per sentence; not per paragraph, as the risk exists that the paragraphs were
be labeled too generally (Mortelmans, 2013). The labels were be based on the existing
theory and literature; however, the multitude of code labels was placed in broader groups
and categories, on the basis of the actual terms used by the participants. These are
referred to as ‘in vivo’ codes (Saunders et al., 2009, Mortelmans, 2013). For the terms not
previously found in the literature, an attempt was made to find literature to support the
37 4. Results
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the findings of the research are presented on the basis of a cross-case analysis
of the organizations. The findings are based on predetermined propositions that were derived
from the current literature on the topic of employee engagement. The findings from this
chapter will be used to formulate the conclusions and discussion chapter.
In order to secure the respondents’ and the companies’ anonymity, each company name has
been replaced with a code, composed of a random number between 1 and 11. A description of
the companies is given in the appendix.
This chapter will be divided into three main topics, based on the critical factors in the
framework for designing and implementing CSR by Maon et al. (2008): recognizing the role
of leadership, creating enthusiasm for and credibility of CSR, and rewarding people that
create CSR successes. Each theory-based proposition will be allocated to one of these
categories.
Propositions
1. The role of leadership is critical in implementing CSR and engaging employees
Recognizing the role of leadership
2. Lower level or dissident employees require tailored messages about CSR
Creating enthusiasm for CSR
3. Based on the type of CSR implementation pattern, different levels of engagement exist
Creating enthusiasm for CSR
4. To stimulate sustainable behavior a reward system must be in place
Rewarding CSR successes 5. In order for employees to be engaged, they must be involved
in creating the CSR policy
Rewarding CSR successes Table 1: Propositions
38
4.2 Recognizing the role of leadership
The first proposition is supported. Nine of the eleven respondents stated that support from the
top tier of the organization was important not merely in creating commitment amongst
employees, but for the overall success of CSR within the firm. The respondents found the
support from the board of directors critical in different ways. The respondent from company 2
felt that the board must set the right example to the employees and other stakeholders. For the
respondent from company 3, it was important that the management team continue to show
their support for CSR during a major reorganization. Company 2 has even rendered part of the
benefits at the top management level dependent on the company’s performance on CSR.
Two respondents mentioned noticed a lack of total acceptance within the board of directors.
The respondent from company 6 claimed that as a CSR manager, he feels not more than mere
tolerance from the management. Three respondents mentioned that despite the board of
directors’ completely embrace of sustainability, several important seniors within the firm
remain skeptical about the true need for CSR. One company found a creative way of dealing
with this problem, as is explained in the following quote:
“What we have done is we have made the person that was most skeptical to the idea of sustainability responsible for the portfolio sustainability. In our experience, once you start working on
sustainability, the enthusiasm is contagious and you start looking at things in different ways.” (Company 10)
The respondents from companies 8 and 5 claimed that having ambassadors for CSR in
different departments can help spread the word on sustainability. People with a passion for the
39
4.3 Creating enthusiasm for and credibility of CSR
The second proposition – lower level or dissident employees require tailored messages about
CSR – is partially supported. The respondent from company 5 explained how her company
provides simple instructions on how employees at the operational level can contribute to the
environment. Another two companies’ respondents explained that they are working on clear
instructions – per function – on how employees at all levels can aid in achieving the firm’s
CSR targets.
Eight of the eleven respondents claimed to have general information on CSR available to all
employees. Respondents mentioned different ways of relaying the CSR message: company 6
has a digital newsletter; companies 9 and 7 have a database on best practices; company 8 has
a short video placed that has been placed on the company’s intranet. The respondent from
company 8 says instead of talking about climate change, deforestation, etc., he aims to
communicate to people the beauty and innovative power of sustainability. As an example, he
named the new office building currently being built, which will produce more energy that it
will consume.
Company 11 has integrated CSR into the introduction program for new employees.
Companies 2 and 9 have organized one or more days dedicated to the topic of sustainability in
an attempt to inspire people, while simultaneously allowing them to ask questions. Unilever
have created a special online community with gamification elements for their employees,
encouraging teams to compete against one other on sustainability challenges. Although the
success of their community seems apparent, this practice has not been tailored to include
lower level employees.
The way in which companies tailor messages to different levels within their organization is
40
and in job specific training programs. Seven companies claimed to have incorporated CSR in
employee training programs. Although some respondents state that their company has specific
training for CSR that is directed at all employees, three respondents mentioned incorporating
CSR into other work related training programs, and two respondents mentioned focusing their
attention on a few specific departments rather than on the entire organization. This has been
explained in the following quote:
“Because we have so many employees, some departments are more important to the sustainability strategy then others, we therefore focus on the
procurement, R&D and marketing & sales departments, these groups are essential to our key CSR targets. […] So there is an online training available for all employees but we focus most of our energy on those three departments.” (Company 2)
Conflicting opinions exist on whether or not employees should be alerted if their day-to-day
activities already contribute to sustainability. Two respondents argued that it is undesirable to
place a CSR label on all sustainable activities. Four other respondents argued that employees
should be made aware of what sustainable activities they are currently partaking in. One of
these four aims to put a CSR label on more activities, to show stakeholders what the company
is doing, in an attempt to foster CSR credibility. The respondent from company 2 is satisfied
when employees know how to contribute to the company targets, as illustrated by the
following quote:
“The final result that we want to achieve is that we expect that everyone can and will have a contribution at his or her level to the overall strategy. Not everyone needs to understand that it is CSR […] They do not need to understand the very high level of abstraction at company level. […] but if someone in a factory takes action to ensure that CO2 emissions are down, that is one of our most important company targets. These are the
41 actions that we expect of our employees, we do not expect huge leaps on
their own, but we can make bigger steps together and that's ultimately what we expect of them.” (Company 2)
The third proposition –based on the type of CSR implementation pattern, different levels of
engagement exist – is inconclusive. Ten of the eleven companies strive to integrate CSR into
the organization. This is emphasized in the following statement by the respondent from
company 10:
“The philosophy of our company is in fact not to have a sustainability department, because if you have a sustainability department and you communicate about sustainability, whenever something has to do with sustainability people will say ‘go to that department’. While we want sustainability to be part of the core of the organization. That there are no specific people working on sustainability, but everyone is engaged in sustainability. This is especially relevant when it comes to
communication with employees. You need to create entries and you must also determine the flow and actions.” (Company 10)
Companies such as these are of the opinion that sustainability should form part of each individual’s thinking and doing; it must come to form part of the day-to-day activities at all
levels. This is more difficult to achieve at operational levels, according to the respondent from
company 5. Some employees at the operational level suffer from a language barrier or fail to
fully grasp the topic of sustainability. The company attempts to educate them on how to be
more energy and waste efficient; although this leads to a sustainable way of working, the
company does not communicate it in this way.
Several respondents explained that their companies participate in volunteer work as part of
42
the main area of focus in which the company strives to involve its employees. Although ten of
the eleven companies strive for patching, it has proven infeasible to measure different levels
of commitment with different implementation methods.
4.4 Rewarding people that create CSR successes
The proposition that to stimulate sustainable behavior a reward system must be in place was
not supported. None of the respondents say they have a reward system in place to reward
sustainable behavior. The respondent from company five said sustainability should be part of
their employees everyday routines and does not need to be rewarded separately. Three
respondents explained that if employees fail to follow company policy – including sustainable
behavior – measures will be taken. Six respondents say the different business units have KPI’s on CSR, however they fail to realize how the KPIs are taken into account in employee
assessments.
The final proposition – that employees must be involved in creating the CSR policy in order
be engaged – is partially supported. Two respondents have sought input from employees to
create their CSR policy. All respondents mentioned that their company has actively collected employees’ ideas for CSR implementation. Five respondents admitted to collecting the ideas
locally, only. Three companies seem to have a suggestion box, but two of the three claimed
this to be ineffective. Four firms seek ideas from employees though a contest methodology.
The following statement validates the contest methodology employed by company 9:
“Employees can leave suggestions through our system on the company intranet. […] However I think it’s more effective if you search actively by offering the person with the best idea a prize or by doing something else fun with it, rather than being reactive the whole year and not giving it a lot of attention.”(Company 9)
43
4.5 Other findings
External stakeholders creating the urgency to implement CSR is not experienced by all the
companies interviewed; four companies mentioned not receiving the trigger from their
customers and other important stakeholders for achieving sustainability. The respondent from
company 10 emphasized the following:
The respondent from company 4, on the other hand, claimed that external stimuli are
necessary for altering the company’s viewpoint. Only once the board of directors reads about
its misconduct in the newspaper will they find the urgency to take steps to move towards
more sustainable investments. However, if their actions are not publicized, no external
stakeholders will know the true situation and the decision to change will not be made.
Companies 2 and 11 have received negative publicity about their behavior in the past year;
some of their employees feel the need to regain the customers’ trust prior to focusing on
sustainability. Three respondents explained how their companies recently experienced an
imposing reorganization; they feel relieved that their companies have continued to stimulate
sustainable behavior during this period. During the session at Unilever, inspirational
management was mentioned as a key element in initiating a change movement.
Six respondents mentioned receiving stimuli from external stakeholders in reaching
sustainability. Three respondents explicitly mentioned receiving requests from their costumers
to aid them in becoming more sustainable.
“The customer doesn’t experience the need to be sustainable. […] So we do a lot of things because we think it is the right thing to do, but it is not always appreciated.”(Company 10)
