Corporate Social Responsibility and Gender
Equality: A look at the long road ahead
An explorative research about Corporate Social Responsibility implementation
strategies, Corporate Social Responsibility professionals and Gender Equality
[MASTER THESIS]
Student: S.W. Constandse Student number: 9930280
Supervisor: L. Moratis
Educational institution: University of Amsterdam Master course: Business Studies
Date: 17 August 2018 Place: Amsterdam
3
For my friend Joris (1980 - 2018). May you rave in peace.
4
Abstract
More and more organizations are held responsible for their actions and how these influence their environment than ever before, which in turn led to gender equality (GE) becoming a priority within the field of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Consequently, organizations need to change to achieve GE. Also, for a successful change, an organization needs an implementation strategy which takes into account all requirements for difficult constructs as GE.
The aim of this research is thus twofold. Firstly, it researches how CSR implementation strategies effect the success of GE. Secondly, it looks into which role CSR professionals play in realizing said success. Subsequently and in line with those goals, the following (main) research question is formulated: what is the effect of CSR implementation strategies and -professionals on the success of gender equality (GE)?
To answer that question – firstly – literature review focussed on central concepts such as GE, CSR and CSR professionals, is provided. Furthermore, the following research design is exploratory and gathers qualitative data through expert interviews about CSR implementation, CSR professionals and critical success factors (CSF’s) of GE.
These interviews in the end show that it is up for debate whether CSR implementation strategies effect the success of GE. Or at least: to what extent. However, creating awareness through a top-down approach of implementation with clear communication, decisively stimulates the success of CSR/GE. The strongest conclusion is therefore that the communicative aspect of a CSR professional’s tasks, role and function, is most important in order to be successful in achieving GE.
On the base of this research, it is recommended to focus on communication. Also, potential follow-up research might focus on the bottlenecks GE implementation. It could focus – perhaps – on a specific industry as well and provide tailor-made recommendations for that industry. A broader range of stakeholders or a different CSR implementation framework, might also provide relevant results for further research.
5
Preface
Dear reader(s),
Hereby, I present to you my master thesis, which concludes my Master of Business Administration at the University of Amsterdam. The thesis contains a research into the effect of CSR implementation strategies and the role of CSR professionals on the success of gender equality (policies) in the Dutch financial services industry.
I choose the aforementioned thesis subject partly out of a relentless curiosity about the so-called ‘softer side’ of business studies. I thus thoroughly enjoyed doing this research since it provides a mountain of new insights into unfamiliar aspects of CSR and gender equality. Granted, the sheer endless information available about both topics at first seemed daunting, but currently it forms a structured and comprehensible enhancement of my knowledge.
I owe a great debt to many kind people without whom I could never have completed this thesis. Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Lars Moratis for his much-needed feedback and (endless) trust. Secondly, I would like to thank my current employer PricewaterhouseCoopers for giving me the opportunity to write this thesis. Thirdly, I would like to thank Daan Heijbroek for his relentless pursuit of my education. And of course, for his (sometimes brutal but) always useful feedback. Fourthly, I would like to thank my parents for their decisive support during every step of this thesis process. Last but – most certainly – not least, I owe many thanks and gratitude to my wife. She never complained about the long nights I spent behind my desk and always provided me with the necessary perspective when I felt down in the dumps.
Steven Constandse,
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ... 4 Preface ... 5 1 Introduction ... 10 1.1 Research subject ... 10 1.2 Research problem/motivation ... 12 1.3 Research relevance ... 13
1.3.1 Academic (i.e. Research GAP) ... 13
1.3.2 Managerial ... 15
1.4 Research questions ... 15
1.5 Research objective ... 16
1.6 Research structure ... 17
2 Literature review ... 18
2.1 Corporate social responsibility ... 18
2.2 Corporate social responsibility implementation ... 20
2.2.1 Stage 1: sensitizing ... 22
2.2.2 Stage 2: unfreezing ... 23
2.2.3 Stage 3: moving ... 26
2.2.4 Stage 4: refreezing... 28
2.3 CSR professional ... 30
2.3.1 Tasks, functions and responsibilities ... 31
2.3.2 Organizational location ... 31
2.3.3 Role & influence on CSR/GE ... 32
2.4 Gender equality CSF’s ... 33
2.4.1 Gender equality: definition and goal... 33
2.4.2 Communication ... 35
2.4.3 Support culture ... 36
7 2.4.5 Gender mainstreaming ... 37 2.5 Conceptual model ... 38 2.6 Conclusion ... 39 3 Methodology ... 40 3.1 Research ‘Onion’/design ... 40 3.1.1 Research philosophy ... 41 3.1.2 Research approach ... 42 3.1.3 Research strategy ... 42 3.1.4 Research type ... 43
3.1.5 Methodological choice (mono, mixed or multi) ... 43
3.1.6 Time horizon... 44
3.2 Data collection ... 44
3.2.1 Sources (primary/secondary) ... 44
3.2.2 Methods (literature review and in-depth interviews) ... 45
3.3 Data analyses ... 46
3.3.1 Qualitative content analysis ... 47
3.3.2 Variables ... 48
3.4 Validity and reliability ... 50
3.4.1 Validity... 50
3.4.2 Reliability ... 51
3.5 Research ethics ... 52
4 Results ... 53
4.1 Introduction ... 53
4.1.1 Validity and reliability ... 53
4.1.2 Research design: adjustments and additions ... 53
4.2 CSR implementation strategies ... 54
4.2.1 Stage 1 (sensitizing) step 1: creating awareness ... 54
4.2.2 Stage 2 (unfreezing) step 2: assessing corporate purpose in societal context ... 56
4.2.3 Stage 2 (unfreezing) step 3: establishing a clear CSR working definition ... 57
8
4.2.5 Stage 2 (unfreezing) step 5: CSR-integrated strategic plan: development ... 57
4.2.6 Stage 3 (moving) step 6: CSR-integrated strategic plan: implementation ... 58
4.2.7 Stage 3 (moving) step 7: internally & externally continuously communicating /reporting CSR implementation ... 58
4.2.8 Stage 3 (moving) step 8: evaluating CSR-integrated strategies and communication ... 59
4.2.9 Stage 4 (refreezing) Step 7: internally & externally continuously communicating /reporting CSR implementation ... 59
4.2.10 Stage 4 (refreezing) Step 9: institutionalizing CSR ... 59
4.3 CSR professionals and GE ... 60
4.3.1 Tasks, functions and responsibilities ... 60
4.3.2 Organizational location ... 61
4.3.3 Role/influence on CSR/GE ... 62
4.3.4 Powers/empowerment ... 63
4.4 GE’s CSF’s and bottlenecks ... 64
4.4.1 CSF: Communication ... 64 4.4.2 CSF: Support culture ... 66 4.4.3 CSF: Compatibility ... 67 4.4.4 CSF: Gender mainstreaming ... 68 4.4.5 CSF: Other ... 70 4.4.6 GE bottlenecks ... 71 5 Discussion ... 74 5.1 CSR-implementation ... 74
5.1.1 Own specific path ... 74
5.1.2 Stage 1: sensitizing ... 74
5.1.3 Stage 2: unfreezing ... 75
5.1.4 Stage 3: moving ... 76
5.1.5 Stage 4: refreezing... 77
5.1.6 Maon et al.’s framework ... 77
5.2 CSR professionals ... 77
9
5.3.1 Communication ... 79
5.3.2 Support culture ... 79
5.3.3 Compatibility ... 80
5.3.4 Gender mainstreaming ... 80
6 Conclusions and Reflections ... 81
6.1 Main conclusion(s) ... 81
6.2 Reflection ... 88
6.2.1 Limitations ... 88
6.2.2 Suggestions ... 90
7 References ... 91
Appendix I: Interview questionnaire ... 103
Appendix II: CSR implementation framework ... 107
Appendix III: GE definitions ... 108
10
1
Introduction
This chapter firstly describes the subject of this thesis/dissertation (1.1). Secondly, it defines the research problem and – thirdly – the research gap (1.2-1.3). Thereafter, the research questions will be defined (1.4). The fifth paragraph describes the research objectives (1.5). Finally, the structure of the report is elaborated (1.6). All in all, this chapter forms the foundation of this thesis.
1.1 Research subject
Society blames organizations more frequently for problems – such as the growing income inequality, environmental disasters, poverty, illness – than ever before, where it used to hold failing democratic institutions responsible for the proliferation of these problems and the challenges they provide (Scherer & Palazzo, 2004; Herrick, 2009). At the core of this shift in blame lies the fact that the general public considers these organizations as entities solely bent on maximizing their profits at the cost of the greater good (Porter & Kramer, 2011). For example, the natural disaster in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, resulted in the public opinion (and anger) turning against BP, accusing the company of striving for financial gain without regard for the environment (Cohen, 2010; Cherry & Sneirson, 2011). Hardly anyone blamed the American government for rejecting help from countries more specialized in the field of oil spill clean-up such as the Netherlands and Belgium (“Here’s The Real Reason America Refused International Help On The Oil Spill”, 2009). Or the fact that the federal government did business with a company whose safety record – already before the spill – was described as dismal (Cherry & Sneirson, 2011).
The fact that organizations are held more responsible for their actions than ever before, has stood at the cradle of the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which came into use as early as the 50s (Bowen, 1953). It consisted (and still does) of the belief that organizations/companies should incorporate a form of self-regulation in their business model, which shouldn’t only focus on complying with the law, but also with a certain set of ethical standards (Thomas, Schermerhorn & Dierhart, 2004). From the 50s onwards, the Western world has experienced major social upheavals that raised the awareness that businesses could do more than maximize profits: it forced organizations and corporations to take social responsibilities for their actions (Moura-Leite & Padgett, 2011). Moreover,
11
legislation in several countries seems to be moving towards holding executives/directors personally accountable for the environmental and social consequences of their business decisions (Perera Aldama, Amar & Trostianki, 2009).
Whether companies should consider CSR as ‘bad’ news in regard to their profitability, is a much debated topic amongst scientific researchers. On the one hand researchers state that companies can financially benefit from battling societal problems (Jyoti & Karunesh, 2014; Ilter, 2013; Flammer, 2014). Their view is underpinned by the simple fact that successful organizations such as Ben and Jerry’s and The Body Shop base their business model clearly on ethical foundations distilled from CSR (Maon, Lindgreen & Swaen, 2009). Porter and Kramer (2006) even argue that capitalism can be reinvented in order to establish a link between competitive advantage and CSR. This might even unleash a beneficial wave of innovation and growth. In other words: according to these researchers CSR can enhance the financial performance of corporations (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Waddock & Grave, 1997; Griffin & Mahon, 1997), which makes Rais and Goedegebuure (2009) conclude that CSR ‘leads to a better firm performance in terms of revenue and profit growths’ (pp. 233). On the other hand, other researchers (Balabanis et al., 1998; Rainey, 2006; Kolstad, 2007; Blomgren, 2011) claim the opposite: implementing CSR strategies does not help companies achieve above industry average profits (which – according to most of these researchers – should not be the goal of CSR to begin with).
No matter which side is taken: the aforementioned debate about profitability never stopped companies from evolving CSR policies and moving on to new topics in order to meet the latest trends and customer demands (Perera Aldema et al., 2009). An example of this is PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a large player in the financial services industry, which has recently taken initiatives to increase attention for gender equality (GE) by (amongst other initiatives) erecting a department that focuses primarily on issues related to GE. This department aims to eradicate inequality by harbouring diversity (‘regardless of sex, origin or sexual orientation’) and an ‘inclusive culture, which is honest, open and safe for everyone’ (“Greater diversity means greater benefits for everyone”, n.d.). All in all this initiative is exemplary for the rising interest in GE (Setchell, 2015) as a key issue of CSR (Epstein & Buhovac 2014; Kopina & Blewitt, 2015; Mundial, 2006) (2.5.4).
12
1.2 Research problem/motivation
Why is the aforementioned initiative of PwC worth relating? Firstly because attention for GE and within the field of CSR – and other business research and practice – is at best modest (1.3). For instance, Schultz states that ‘CSR is well known for promoting environmental sustainability goals but less for promoting social sustainability goals. So far, the potential of CSR to promote […] gender equality is hardly recognized by the public’ (Council of Europe, 1998; “CSR and Gender Equality”, n.d.).
Secondly, PwC and other corporations might have realized that GE amongst their employees is worth striving for – as Schultz (2009, pp. 8) puts it: ‘An overview of CSR activities of European saving banks which are not stock market listed […] demonstrates serious engagement […] to promote gender equality’ –, but issues such as unequal divide of promotions and unequal opportunities still remain to be solved. For example, as recently as 2014 nearly 60 percent of women working in the U.S. earned less than men of the same age with a similar education for the same amount of work (Hartman, Hayes & Clark, 2014), which proves that the glass ceiling is still nowhere near being shattered (Barreto, Ryan & Schmitt, 2009).
Thirdly, PwC might have taken steps in order to eliminate gender inequality, but researchers recognize that corporations and/or companies struggle with successfully implementing CSR strategies. Some even claim that CSR implementation strategies never succeed because CSR in itself should be considered a ‘failing discipline’ that brings ‘no clear and consistent benefit for the disadvantaged’ (Blowfield, 2005, pp. 179). A reason for this – according to some – is that managers tasked with CSR implementation face a tough dilemma: which stakeholder categories should the organization cooperate with and include? Implementing CSR entails understanding the ever-changing demands, values and expectations of an often diverse group of stakeholders and their various (intrinsic) and often conflicting demands, values and expectations – which all need to be satisfied at a minimum level. So all in all managers have to make a lot of difficult choices when implementing CSR (Maon, Lindgreen & Swaen, 2009).
Last but not least, PwC operates within the financial sector, which – in most states of the European Union for that matter – should be considered a male-dominated industry where gender inequality is still apparent (Wyman, 2014). In 2014 the Dutch financial sector still had a general pay gap between genders of 22,8 percent (Gowling, 2014). And even though the
13
general pay gap in other sectors of the Dutch economy is shrinking (“Dutch gender pay gap shrinks to under one euro an hour”, 2015), the financial sector forms an exception to this (positive) development. In other words, this sector demands extra attention when it comes to CSR implementation to improve if not achieve GE.
All in all, a lot still needs to be done in order to achieve (an excusable amount of) equality amongst male and female employees and the road to success – as clarified above – is a hazardous one paved with difficulties. Therefore this research explores the status of GE by focusing on the success or lack thereof of different CSR implementation strategies to that end. In other words, what is needed for these strategies to work and consequently improve GE?
1.3 Research relevance
Below the academic (1.3.1) and managerial (1.3.2) relevance are discussed.
1.3.1 Academic (i.e. Research GAP)
Even though CSR implementation strategies have been researched by – for example – Perrini, Russo and Tencati (2007), Seitanidi and Crane (2009) and Hutjens, Nikolay and Haezendonck, 2015; and more specific, the adoption and implementation of GE and equal employment policies (also known as ‘gender mainstreaming’: see also 2.4) is also studied by several researchers (Booth & Bennet, 2002; Grosser & Moon, 2005; Gaspard & Heinen, 2014); others researchers like Baumgartner (2013, pp. 259) claim that ‘there is a black – or at least grey – box in management about how to […] implement corporate sustainability strategies and CSR’. Lindgreen et al. (2008) support this view: while the term CSR might be used on a daily basis – not only by researchers in theory but also in practice by the business sector – research on CSR implementation remains incomplete/scarce. A possible explanation for this gap is provided by Klettner (2013, pp. 149) as follows: ‘This is partly because of the difficulty in defining corporate responsibility in a practical sense – its meaning can be very different depending on a company’s size, industry and location.’ Klettner (2013) further states that due to this diversity every company needs a CSR strategy that is tailored to internal and external contingencies and thus will be unique to the company concerned. Simply put: CSR implementation strategies are strongly context-driven and thus complex to such an extent that they are difficult to research.
14
Also, this research provides an addition to its field by studying the role of ‘the CSR professional’ (a broad function, as discussed in 2.5) in implementing the aforementioned strategies – in other words: the practical and human aspect of improving GE. Anno 2015 their role and function have been researched by various sources such as the CROA (Corporate Responsibility Officers Association) which in 2011 published a guidebook aspiring to further enhance the foundations for the profession of C(S)R professionals. However, its approach focussed on how companies can organize C(S)R for success and which knowledge, skills, and attributes CR leaders ought to possess. In other words: this research lacks the focus to provide insight into the part CSR professional play when implementing CSR policies (in order to, for example, promote GE). Another prominent study about CSR professionals – done by CSR Asia (2009) and titled Who is getting it done? The role of CSR professionals in Asia – only discussed GE as a side issue by determining that slightly more males than females occupy the senior CSR management roles within the region (59% versus 41%). It thus should be concluded that research about this particular function forms a relevant addition to CSR theory.
Research about GE in the Dutch financial services industry is non-existent. That is even more an eyesore since this industry struggles with a stubborn gender pay gap (CBS, 2014), which in turn leads to the assumption that GE is a formidable issue within financial services. Of course, GE in top management – specifically the lack thereof – has been the subject of many a research (Connel, 2002; Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008; Deszö & Gaddis Ross, 2012; Kogut et al., 2014) and the same goes for GE among the lower regions of corporations (Barreto, Ryan & Schmitt, 2009). However, those theories have not been applied to the Dutch financial services industry in an extensive and thorough matter. And it hardly needs to be said: the aforementioned studies about CSR implementation mainly focus on sectors different from the Dutch financial services industry – such as Ingrid Bego’s extensive Gender Equality Policy in the European Union: A Fast Track to Parity for the New Member States (2015). Once again: this makes the Dutch financial services industry uncovered terrain when it comes to CSR implementation strategies in promotion of GE.
Lastly, researchers pertain specific ideas about how CSR implementation strategies, CSR professionals and GE are interlinked. Firstly, CSR professionals seem to directly influence implementation strategies, since they are tasked with improving their design and implementation (Jamali, Dirani & Harwood, 2015). And both those elements (professionals
15
and strategies) are claimed to influence GE improvement, because these strategies – through identification and management of internal and external stakeholder expectations – line up organizations with environmental demands and values (Maon et al., 2009) – one such value being GE. Nevertheless, to what extent are these findings and conclusions of prior researchers applicable to the context of this particular research? That question (and hopefully its answer) encapsulates the last part of the academic relevance of this research
To summarize, in the hope of providing a relevant addition to the academic field of CSR, this research aims to study the effect of CSR implementation strategies on the success of GE whilst acknowledging the important part CSR professionals play therein.
1.3.2 Managerial
This research might also be attributed managerial relevance. After all, its results, analysis, conclusion and discussion (4.2-5.3) provide underpinned and critical insights into CSR practices within organizations aimed at GE. That information helps managers, board members and other employees – for example: in the Dutch financial services industry but not limited to that specific sector –, understand how they might evaluate or even improve their CSR/GE approach. Furthermore, in the best case scenario, they might permanently improve – through e.g. restructuring and adapting – their CSR implementation strategies or how CSR professionals operate within related processes. And incorporating such improvements is essential for positively impacting GE.
1.4 Research questions
Following central research question (MRQ) is based on the Research motivation (1.2) and GAP in the literature (1.3):
What is the effect of CSR implementation strategies and CSR professionals on the success of gender equality?
Nota bene: the following chapter further expands the meaning and context of central concepts such as CSR implementation strategy (2.2), CSR professionals (2.3) and the success of GE (2.4).
16
Based on this MRQ, Research motivation (1.2) and GAP in the literature (1.3) the following research questions are formulated:
1) How are CSR implementation strategies, CSR professionals and GE linked according
to the literature/theory? (H2)
2) Which components of CSR implementation strategies improve GE according to CSR
experts? (H4.2)
3) What is the influence of CSR professionals on the success of GE according to CSR
experts? (H4.3)
4) What are the critical success factors and bottlenecks of GE according to CSR
experts? (H4.4)
It is relevant (and perhaps clarifying) to explain how these four research questions contribute to answering the MRQ. RQ1 collects literature (i.e. scientific publications) about central theoretical concepts – e.g. CSR implementation strategies and GE – and how they relate to each other, in order to create a theoretical framework on which interview questions are based (Appendix I) for the later empirical research (4.2-4.4). RQ2-RQ4 are – broadly speaking – cut from the same cloth, since together they constitute that empirical backbone of the research (i.e. ‘according to experts’). Nevertheless, these RQ’s differ in their subject matter: RQ2 finds out which components of a CSR implementation strategy improve GE (4.2), while RQ3 discusses how CSR professionals function within organisations and how they might employ their influence to improve GE (4.3). In its own way RQ4 tries to achieve the same by mapping CSF’s and bottlenecks of GE (4.4).
1.5 Research objective
The aim of this research is twofold. Firstly, it investigates how CSR implementation strategies impact the success of GE within the Dutch financial services industries. Secondly, it tries to determine which part the CSR professional has to play in the success or failure of this implementation and the subsequent promotion of GE. It achieves both objectives/goals by gathering information from a literature study about (amongst others) CSR implementation strategies (2.2), GE (2.4-2.5) and CSR professionals (2.3). That theory lays the foundation for the subsequent qualitative research in the form of in-depth interviews with CSR experts,
17
which in turn form the basis for a conclusion about the effect of CSR implementation strategies on the success of GE and the part/role CSR professionals play in this process.
1.6 Research structure
The thesis will consist of six chapters (References excluded). Chapter two gives an review of the literature about the central concepts of this thesis (e.g. GE). In Chapter three the methodology is described and underpinned – as well as the research design and techniques. The results and analysis of the data are covered in Chapter four. Subsequently, the discussion and conclusion resulting from that data analysis are discussed in Chapter five and six.
18
2
Literature review
In the first section of this chapter the concept of CSR is discussed (2.1). The second paragraph is dedicated to CSR implementation strategies (2.2). Thirdly, the role of the CSR professional is discussed (2.3). Subsequently, GE is reviewed (2.4). The fifth paragraph presents the conceptual model (2.5). The chapter ends with the conclusion (2.6). All in all, this chapter provides a theoretical framework/foundation upon which to build the later empirical research by determining the connection between all foresaid subjects and their relation to the aforementioned research problem/motivation (1.2).
2.1 Corporate social responsibility
It is nothing if not unoriginal to state that the literature has defined CSR in a sheer infinite number of ways which are often biased toward specific interests and thus prevent the development and implementations of the concept (Van Marrewijk, 2003). Nevertheless, this rather bleak view has not discouraged researchers from trying to capture CSR in a clear and unbiased definition since it first emerged in the 1950s (De Bakker et al., 2005). Dahlsrud (2006) even valiantly tried to bring about a clear and unbiased definition of CSR based on the analysis of 37 different definitions of this concept (further discussed below).
What are some of these definitions? Some for example have concluded that CSR deals with corporate actions not driven by economic incentives or complying to the law, but driven by ethical issues and responsibilities towards society (Jones, 1980; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Kim et al., 2010; Hack et al., 2013). Others have constituted that CSR has developed from – to some extent uncoordinated – voluntary practices by the businesses to explicit commitments in response to stakeholder pressures and ongoing future commitments (Maon et al., 2009; Kotler & Lee, 2005).
Furthermore, some stated that CSR can be defined as an activity which ‘recognises the social imperatives of business success and which addresses its social externalities’ and it does this by ‘combining technical processes of measuring and reporting social performance with political processes of redefining rights and responsibilities, particularly through different forms of stakeholder engagement’ (Grosser & Moon, 2005, pp. 2). In line with this definition Aguinis and Glavas (2012, pp. 939) stated that CSR consists of ‘context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance’. McWilliams and
19
Siegel (2001) simply stated that CSR concerns actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law.
In conclusion, let’s hark back to Dahlsrud’s (2006) attempt to unilaterally define CSR on a clear and unbiased basis. His research determines five (general) dimensions of CSR definitions based on a content analysis, namely: a stakeholder, social, economic, voluntariness and environmental dimension. Each of these has different goals. For example, the social dimension states that companies should strive for a better relationship between business and society; the environmental dimension constitutes that companies ought to aim at a cleaner environment. In the end, Dahlsrud concludes that the available definitions of CSR consistently refer to the [aforementioned] five dimensions and are ‘predominantly congruent, making the lack of one universally accepted definition less problematic’ (pp. 6). At the same time however, he stresses the need for every definition to be ‘context specific for each individual business, i.e. what are the specific CSR issues to be addressed and how to engage with the stakeholders’ (pp. 6).
In this research Dahlsrud’s conception is heeded and the following definition of CSR – based on Hopkins (1998), The World Business Council for Sustainable Economic Development (1999), Lea (2002) and Jackson and Hawker (2001) – is formulated:
Corporate social responsibility is concerned with treating the stakeholders of the organization in an ethically and socially responsible manner beyond legal obligations. Stakeholders exist both within a firm (e.g. employees) and outside (e.g. communities where a business operates). CSR thus increases the human development of these stakeholders […] and improves their quality of life.
This composite and case specific definition is preferred since (largely in contrast to the abovementioned ones) it incorporates and emphasizes the internal stakeholders of CSR: a company’s own employees – a crucial element for this research. After all, it focusses on the effect of CSR implementation strategies and the role of CSR professionals on improving (gender) equality amongst employees. Also, the environmental, voluntariness and economic dimension (Dalhsud, 2006) are deemed irrelevant for a research which takes GE amongst employees as its core subject – they are thus excluded from the definition.
20
Apart from the complex and dynamic theoretical framework in which present-day CSR is discussed by researchers, the concept encompasses a range of subjects and key issues: environmental management, eco-efficiency, responsible sourcing, stakeholder engagement, labour standards and working conditions, employee and community relations, social equity, human rights, anti-corruption measures, diversity and – especially relevant for this research – GE (Epstein & Buhovac 2014; Kopina & Blewitt, 2015). If an organization or company aims to improve upon foresaid issues it ought to implement a strategy/policy to that end. These corporate social responsibility implementation strategies – and the stages and steps they embody – form the subject of the next paragraph (2.2).
2.2 Corporate social responsibility implementation
CSR strategy implementation should be considered an organizational change process (after all: it entails moving from a present to a future state) that often constitutes a new way of working and organizing (Dawson, 2003) throughout the whole organization in order to align it with the dynamic demands of its business and social environment (Maon et al., 2009). Ideally, its impact extends beyond the organizational chart and preferably embeds itself in the organizational culture as well (Perera Aldema et al., 2009).
This implementation process is thus strongly dependent on – amongst other things – context (e.g. country-specific or cultural) and/or previous experiences of said organization with CSR and consequently all but carved in stone: it can take on many different forms. Consequently, each organization walks its own specific path towards CSR implementation (Were, 2003; Cramer, 2005). For example, a growing number of organizations seek assistance with CSR implementation through partnerships with public organizations, NGO’s and/or trade unions (Mailand, 2004; Seitanidi & Crane, 2009) or turn to external experts in order to find their own CSR approach (Were, 2003).
This (often cyclical) process of implementation involves a significant amount of change throughout an organization which – according to some – should be imposed from the highest organizational level. After all, CEO’s and other executives determine which ethical norms their organization should strive for and promote their subsequent integration down the line into corporate policy and culture (Desai & Rittenburg, 1997). Khoo and Tan (2002) consequently state that ‘top management’s commitment in leading the transformation’ is crucial (ppp. 197). On the other hand, other sources state that companies
21
struggle with steep CSR learning curves and that an abundance of grassroots work within and outside companies contradicts the above-mentioned top down approach of CSR implementation (Jørgensen et al., 2003).
What is the goal of this implementation process? As mentioned before: it aims to line up organizations with the demands and values of its environment – for instance: GE. It achieves this by identifying and managing internal as well as external stakeholder expectations (Maon et al., 2009). Nowadays implementing and integrating CSR to that end is a necessity for companies that wish to remain competitive in the modern globalized and aggressive markets, since it allows them to distinguish themselves from their competitors while at the same time adding value to their company (Perera Aldema et al., 2015).
CSR implementation strategies vary widely due to the fact that a broad range of external and internal factors (e.g. stakeholders) as well as different forms of inter- organizational support determine the road towards implementation (Baumgartner, 2010). In other words, according to Lindgreen et al. (2008) each organization evolves within a distinct context and consequently faces varying constraints which implore them to develop and implement CSR policies and activities which suit their specific business rationale, organizational culture and strategic goals etc. This diversity is not surprising since CSR itself has never consisted of a single all-inclusive activity, but rather a collection of many diverse activities from which an organization makes a selection. It is thus (highly) debatable if implementation practices exist that are applicable to any organization, regardless of size, industry sector or country of origin (Perera Aldema et al., 2015).
Despite this endless variation and uncertainty about what constitutes CSR implementation researchers have pinpointed many (sometimes fixed) implementation processes (Epstein & Roy, 2001; Harila & Petrini, 2003; Maon et al., 2009). For example, Khoo and Tan (2002) determine four cyclic stages of implementation (or as they call it: ‘integration’), namely: preparation, transformation, implementation and sustainable business results. And Maignan et al. (2005) pinpoint eight steps organizations should take in order to implement CSR (be it from a marketing perspective): discovering organizational values and norms (1), identifying stakeholders (2) and their main concerns (3), assessing a meaning of CSR that fits the organization (4), auditing current practices (5), prioritizing and implementing CSR changes/initiatives (6), promoting CSR by creating awareness and
22
involving stakeholders (7) and lastly gaining stakeholders’ feedback (8). In other words, uncertainty notwithstanding, scholars have generated multiple CSR implementation frameworks.
Below a framework for CSR implementation is established for this research in order to provide a reliable and structured insight into this process. This cadre is mainly based on Maon et al. (2009) because their framework – consisting of four stages and nine steps – is based not only on real-time industry data (‘rich, in-depth case histories’ as they themselves describe, pp. 73), but also incorporates a combination of planned change theories and research on implementing CSR (for example: Were, 2003; Cramer, 2005; Khoo & Tan, 2002). Their cadre consequently consists of a broad basis of stable and exact data, which only sparingly needs to be expanded with additional theory for it to function as a foundation for the later interviews with CSR experts (4.3).
Concerning this last point: the following stages and steps are incorporated into the empirical research by questioning CSR experts about (a) how these elements affect GE (for example: to what extent is refreezing necessary for improving GE?) and (b) which role the CSR professionals play in this implementation process. For further elaboration of this research approach: see Chapter 3 Methodology and Appendix I for the interview questionnaire.
2.2.1 Stage 1: sensitizing
The first stage of CSR implementation consists of the upper/top management gaining awareness of the importance of CSR issues (Maon et al., 2009).
Step 1: Creating awareness
In this first step the upper/top management (e.g. board of directors) (or in some cases an individual within this group) seeks to prevail in the face of encountered resistance to the change implied in that new awareness (Maon et al., 2009) which will force them to run a campaign in order to ‘recast employees’ prevailing views and create a new context for action’ (Garvin & Roberto, 2005, pp. 106). Were (2003, pp. 250) adds another precondition to this stage: ‘Crucial in this first phase […] is that the top managers are actively involved in person. The responsibility for and participation in this phase cannot be fully delegated to e.g. a strategic unit of the organization or a middle manager.’ In conclusion: this first step
23
encompasses rattling the cages in order to get attention for a noted CSR issue or CSR in general by anybody in said corporation/company.
2.2.2 Stage 2: unfreezing
This second stage requires managers to ‘unfreeze’ past practices and long-held, unchallenged, cultural assumptions employees might have about the correct way to operate by new inputs. Thus barriers to the development of CSR orientation – such as fear of change or the belief focus on CSR will diminish core values – are dissolved (Maon et al., 2009; Mirvis, 2011).
Step 2: Assessing corporate purpose in its societal context
This step in itself consists of two elements. Firstly, organizations/corporations should recognize their values and norms since they might have implications for CSR. After all, they guide behaviours and decisions within an organization and accordingly support the organization’s efforts to reach its vision and goals. At the same time, embedding and expressing these values and norms in (management) practice should reinforce actions/behaviour that benefit the organization itself and/or communities (internal and external) and thus fortify these organizational values and norms. These shared values are also considered central to promoting a strong organizational culture and by doing so enhancing the effectiveness of the organization in question (Maon et. al, 2009; Murphy et al., 2002), but – most importantly for this research – they form the basis upon which organizations ought to build their corporate values in order to produce an organizational culture that is receptive to change and can sustain a CSR strategy over the long run (Maon et. al, 2009).
Secondly, this step entails the identifying of key stakeholders – described by Freeman (1984, pp. 46) as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives’ – and their critical issues that are to be addresses by the CSR implementation strategy in question. And not only should managers identify the correct stakeholders, but also their dissimilar and often contradictory values, hopes and demands, since only by clearly and correctly mapping these parties and their concerns, can managers avoid misallocating resources to non-stakeholders or stakeholders without legitimate interests or concerns with the addressed issue (Maon et al., 2009).
24
Step 3: Establishing a clear working definition and vision for CSR
Organizations should formulate a working definition of CSR that promotes a socially responsible shared vision, which in turn takes account of stakeholders’ expectations and is also compatible with the organization’s strategic (i.e. long-term) goals (Maon et al., 2009). This definition provides managers and stakeholders with a mainstay upon which to fall back that makes sure both parties are working to the same end. It also lays the foundation for further CSR assessment. Also, a clear definition prevents ‘growing cynicism […] and obfuscation’ about what CSR in reality constitutes, which in turn can create 'bad context for ethical decisions’ (Stewart, 2003, pp. 313).
At the same time, the aforementioned workable definition must form the basis for a ‘constructive, socially responsible vision’ (Maon et al., 2009, pp. 79) for the future of the organization which (also) needs to be aligned with external demands (i.e. stakeholders) and at the same time should inspire employees to act accordingly to this vision. Furthermore, top management should formulate and communicate this vision through available channels (reports, brochures, stakeholder consultations, internal channels, prizes and events, cause-related marketing, product packaging, interventions in the press etc.). Besides, management is responsible for assuring its contents are in tune with the aforementioned corporate values and personal employees’ values (Birth et al., 2008).
Step 4: Assessing/measuring current CSR status
The fourth step towards CSR implementation pertains to determining the existing status of CSR within the organization. How is this achieved? Firstly, since CSR is a complex and broad concept, an assortment of procedures is needed to evaluate the current level of an organization’s responsibility (for example): reviewing relevant operating documents (mission statements etc.), consulting key CSR managers/figures, auditing current practices, assessing community involvement, philanthropic activities, studying CSR literature and interviewing stakeholders (Morimoto, 2005). Also – secondly – organizations ought to benchmark CSR practices in order to pinpoint activities and policies it should retain or discard. This insight can be gained by organizations through the following three steps:
1) identifying best performers on industry specific CSR issues (a) and CSR champions for more general CSR issues (b);
25
2) identifying norms and standards of competitors (a) and measuring performances of best practices against these benchmarks (b);
3) comparing its own performance(s) with best practices in order to determine the gap (Clarkson, 1995; Maon et al., 2009).
Despite abovementioned approach/three steps it should be noted that several researchers have doubted whether such as unilateral method for measuring CSR can at all be constructed (Carroll, 2000). After all, CSR is – as mentioned numeral times – a context-specific phenomenon that differs per situation, location and organization. Or as Vortaw (1972 as cited in Turker, 2008, pp. 412) simply stated: ‘[CSR] means something, but not always the same thing, to everybody.’ Also, this diversity undermines the use of standardized sets of indicators to measure the effect/success of CSR implementation strategies. Of course, organizations can rely on existing standardized indicators for reference, but they should also develop indicators suited to their own business requirements, which at the same time represent accurately the wide-ranging internal and external impact of their organization processes (Asif et al., 2011).
In order to align itself with foresaid condition for measuring the effect/success of CSR implementation strategies, this research provides CSF’s of GE (see 2.5) which (at least to some extent) are context-specific since they are tuned to the internal and external factors of the Dutch financial industry. By doing so it makes the effect/success of CSR implementation strategies measurable.
Step 5: CSR-integrated strategic plan: development
Which actions should an organization effectively undertake when it integrates CSR into its strategy? First and foremost, it should convert visions, values and/or policy statements about CSR into commitments, expectations and so-called ‘guided principles’ (codes of conduct etc.). Secondly, it also ought to set goals while developing targets and performance measures. There are several other measures/actions which can assure an integrated CSR strategy, namely: establishing an integrated CSR-enabling structure (e.g. senior CSR official or separate CSR department), incorporating CSR responsibilities into performance evaluations and erecting internal organization forums where employees can share knowledge/issues about CSR (Maon et al., 2009).
26
It might be necessary for an organization to change significantly in order to successfully institutionalize CSR, since the right structures are needed to translate the CSR approach into functioning systems and processes (Nijhof et al., 2003). Griffiths and Petrick (2001) advise – to that end – to create special ‘corporate architecture’ for CSR implementation such as specialized departments and/or committees (Batemen & Zeithaml, 1993; Brytting, 1997). Anno 2015 these departments are commonly implemented by corporations (see also 2.3).
2.2.3 Stage 3: moving
Put quite simply: in this third stage the organization in question is ‘guided toward a new set of assumptions’ (Maon et al., 2009, pp. 76) after shedding the aforementioned ‘old’ assumptions. This stage also contains identification of the need to implement/adopt a CSR orientation within said organization.
Step 6: CSR-integrated strategic plan: implementation
After top-level management decides upon the CSR strategy, lower level employees – mainly middle management – are tasked with implementing this into reality. In practice this means that middle management is assigned to allocate and control the needed resources, monitor the(ir) staff (their ‘CSR performance’ and behaviour) and – if deemed necessary – clarify the CSR policy to the staff. Moreover, these managers are responsible for communicating and enforcing the CSR strategy and implementation. Consequently, top management and the lower strata of the organization should communicate in an effective and clear manner about the implementation of the strategy (about which more below). At the same time this communication should focus on creating awareness amongst employees and ensure/enhance understanding of said organization’s CSR approach (Maon et al., 2009; Asif et al., 2013).
Subsequently, it is important to involve employees in implementing CSR since organizations then assure themselves of a sense of ownership (or the feeling of being co-creators) among these stakeholders – even better: a sense of satisfaction, well-being and pride in their organization’s CSR activities. This pride can be attained by training employees and helping them grasp how CSR affects not only their own environment but also themselves. Regular progress updates also stimulate enthusiasm about CSR. Organizations can otherwise utilize incentives by – for instance – rewarding employees for relevant
27
suggestions concerning CSR (Lyon, 2004). Apart from communicating, stimulating and rewarding, organizations ought to put procedures/instruments in place for detecting, reporting and resolving anti-CSR activities (Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Maon et al., 2009).
Step 7: Communicating CSR commitments and performance
In the moving stage (third of four in total) internal communication about CSR on a continuous basis (i.e. about changes, progress and misconceptions) through selected channels (e.g. annual reports, meetings and training) is needed to increase awareness throughout the organization, since – exceptions barred – as Bhattacharya et al. (2008, pp. 38) put it: ‘[M]ost employees are not close to their employers’ CSR efforts; while many have a vague notion that their employer is socially responsible, they know little to nothing about the specific activities the company engages in.’ By battling this lack of awareness it becomes possible for the top management team to petition contributions/input for the results of the implementation process, improve knowledge amongst supervisory management personnel and identify and delineate role relationships and expectations. At the same time, these media allow the organization to maintain a consistent and unbroken pattern of information dissemination (Maon et al., 2009).
External communication in this seventh step consists mostly of companies responding to the stakeholder demand for transparency and CSR by publishing about how they fulfilled their responsibilities and promises to that end. In practice this information is (mostly) spread through annual and separate reports about social and environmental activities or websites – nota bene: without legal obligations. This form of communication has a possible downside/disadvantage, namely: it exposes organizations to attacks from anti-globalization organizations that are critical of companies utilizing their CSR activities for promotional goals (Maon et al., 2009; Asif et al., 2013).
In conclusion, establishing the right form and frequency for communication about CSR activities, achievements and practices is a delicate affair. After all, communication needs and wishes vary per stakeholder, since (amongst other things) they place different priorities on CSR issues. It is thus obvious that clearly identifying stakeholders and their expectations, as well as maintaining a CSR dialogue, both remain the keystones of an effective CSR communication strategy (Maon et al., 2009).
28
Step 8: Evaluating CSR-integrated strategies and communication
This last step of the moving stage consists of evaluating CSR through measurements,
verifications and reports, in order to determine which aspects (i.e. activities, strategies
implementations etc.) are a success or a failure – and of course: how to respond to either of those two possible outcomes. Also, these reviews/evaluations of CSR allow (internal and external) stakeholders to recognize the activities undertaken and the (possible) progress these have accomplished (Maon et al., 2009).
How are these evaluations of CSR conducted? Which mechanisms are used to this end? Firstly, auditing is a tried and tested threshold for measuring CSR performance. Arduous application of this instrument enhanced its value, which – in turn – can be realized if external auditors are involved, since it is assumed that these independent parties maintain a higher level of independency and thus are more critical when reviewing a company’s CSR performance. Moreover, involving external stakeholders in the monitoring process signals the willingness to improve CSR policies and established credibility amongst stakeholders – internal and external. Another way to improve the effect of audits is by publishing the results thereof. This transparency makes it possible to compare the results with target standards. Last but not least, organization need to invite stakeholders so that they can verify their CSR achievements (Maon et al., 2009).
It is worth noting that CSR implementation processes are incomplete unless they involve continuous improvement. The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle of Deming (1994) which lays the foundation for continuous improvement of these processes, for example, provides a meta-routine for continuous improvement along social, environmental, economic, and other stakeholder dimensions (Asif et al., 2013).
2.2.4 Stage 4: refreezing
In the fourth stage managers are required to refreeze the newly gained CSR-oriented cultural assumptions and values within their companies. Building new structures and implementing processes that support these new values, assumptions and resultant behaviour are some of the changes that (in some cases) are needed to facilitate this process. Nota bene: refreezing CSR values and assumptions is only possible if employees are able to constantly reflect on former business approaches and strategies instead of solely learning by adapting (e.g. via trial and error) (Maon et al., 2009).
29
Step 7: Communication about CSR commitments and performance
In this fourth phase the communication about CSR differs from the third stage. Firstly, it should centre on displaying and publicizing the achievements of CSR programs in order to celebrate success and institutionalize the process. And secondly, this communication is to be characterized – in this particular stage – by concrete information concerning organizational outcomes (Klein, 1996; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Communication in the refreezing stage should also affix the CSR vision into everyday activities of the employees and thus the organization (Maon et al., 2009).
Step 9: Institutionalizing CSR
In this last step of the last phase CSR is institutionalized in order to ensure the continuation and survival of implemented activities and structures that aim to create new values, assumptions and resultant behaviour amongst employees – all in order to ensure the continuation of the CSR initiative. Or – put more simply – this step constitutes ‘the translation of expectations, definitions of CSR and constructions of institutional norms’ (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010, pp. 22). After all, in order to achieve sustainability, activities should be institutionalized and considered part of the corporate culture when they have been adopted as long-term strategy and thus function as a decision making guide (e.g. is this activity sufficiently CSR-orientated or should it be amended?) (Maon et al., 2009).
Additionally, committing resources and establishing rewards and penalties for achievement/failure provides useful indications of this dedication to the initiative. Furthermore, a continuous and constructive stream of dialogue throughout this phase fixes weaknesses and corrects deficiencies in the CSR execution. This subsequently promotes the institutionalization of the CSR vision and processes while increasing the credibility of published results (Maon et al., 2009).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the CSR implementation framework provided by Maon et al. (2009) provides ‘an initial road map for managers seeking to implement CSR-oriented change’ (pp. 86). In this research, their model (and the added literature/research per phase and/or step) functions as a framework upon which to base the later empirical research when experts are
30
interviewed about how CSR implementation strategies can stimulate GE. Maon et al.’s phases and steps almost completely cover this implementation process. Only a discussion of the role CSR professionals play during this process is missing – which is the subject of the following paragraph (2.3). After that gender equality and its CSF’s are discussed (2.5) before a conceptual model is presented (2.6).
2.3 CSR professional
Before this paragraph delves into the literature about CSR professionals and what role they play in enhancing CSR in general and GE specifically: in this report, the term ‘CSR professional’ is used as a broad term to define any person employed to advance corporate social responsibility (as defined in 2.1) within organizations (internally and/or externally appointed). Consequently this may include employees at various levels of seniority with a broad range of job titles including (but not limited to) CSR, sustainability, corporate responsibility, corporate relations, officer/professional, community relations, environmental issues and so forth. To even further expand this function: employees from areas as strategy, human resources, marketing and finance often also have CSR responsibilities and consequently are also considered CSR professionals (ACCSR, 2007).
The forementioned broad definition/wide range is maintained for two reasons. Firstly for the practical reason that it enlarges the potential research population for this report, since a broad definition of the CSR professional ensures sufficient interviewees and thus enough empirical results upon which to base conclusions. Added benefit of this broad selection is that the data is gathered from different sources and perspectives which enhances its reliability.) Secondly, since companies not always formalize and localize CSR functions, a broad approach/definition prevents professionals from being dismissed, which is not unlikely because in 2011 the Corporate Responsibility Officers Association (2011) discovered that 62% of companies possessed ‘what they consider a formal CR function, though it may or may not be centralized or managed by a single department or officer’ (pp. 8). In other words, CSR professionals are easily overlooked which makes it necessary to look everywhere.
31
2.3.1 Tasks, functions and responsibilities
What tasks, functions and responsibilities are assigned to these CSR professionals? Risi (2014) provides a rather oblique description – ‘… ensuring the stability of CSR and challenging the relationship between business and society in MNC’s’ –, but commonly CSR practitioners are in charge of environmental management (e.g. minimizing the impact of their supply chain), reporting (e.g. determining how to internally and externally express CSR progress) or community involvement and stakeholder(s) dialogue/engagement (e.g. building alliances and coalitions with key constituency groups). Also, these traditional CSR activities have been expanded by adding broader risk management responsibilities such as identifying risks and opportunities within stakeholder expectations (CROA, 2011; Welford, 2012). Other tasks and responsibilities mentioned include the following: broadening and raising understanding within the company of how society expects it to perform on CSR issues (CROA, 2011) and strategizing and reporting ‘with distributed responsibility for implementation and execution’ (Cramer & Crespin, 2012, pp. 12). All in all, CSR professionals are tasked with improving the design and implementation of CSR strategies (Jamali, Dirani & Harwood, 2015) in order for it to become a ‘taken-for-granted way of doing business’ (Risi, 2014, pp. 280).
2.3.2 Organizational location
Just as varied as their job titles and tasks/functions is the place of CSR professionals in the organizational structure (Cartland, 2011). Anno 2015 most of the world’s largest companies – for example: Unilever, Apple and Disney – have stand-alone CSR departments manned by professionals and specialized teams which are led by appointed CSR managers. These teams can exist of specialists in corporate communication, labour rights and conditions, sustainable supply chains and environmental issues etc. According to the Corporate Responsibility Officers Association (2011) roughly one-third of the organizations formalized CSR and provided it with an own department. All in all, many corporations have dedicated corporate functions focused on CSR in order to become ‘responsible leaders’ (Gond et al., 2011).
In other organizations however the central CSR professional is a board member (Serafeim & Miller, 2014). Strand (2013, pp. 730) even identified ‘many CSR and sustainability focused top management teams amongst the upper echelon of many of the world’s largest and most well-known corporations’ (especially in Scandinavia). Yet there are
32
also companies that don’t make room for stand-alone CSR divisions and assimilate CSR professionals into other departments like public relations, human resources, corporate communications, marketing or sales (Perera Aldama et al., 2009). And not that long ago – namely in Asia in 2012 – a substantial percentage of companies formed CSR committees/teams solely on the voluntary membership of its own employees (Welford, 2012).
2.3.3 Role & influence on CSR/GE
If the aforementioned diversity and fluid form of the CSR professional on several levels are taken into account, it becomes understandable that companies could benefit from a clearly defined function of CSR officer or CSR professional that is specifically appointed to deal with CSR issues. This is deemed necessary because – according to Griffiths and Aldema et al. (2007) – the risk exists that CSR managers become odd pieces in a puzzle, without enough authority to create value for the firm (and thus for society). This also prevents misunderstandings and subsequent confusion about the role of CSR managers within organizations (ACCSR, 2007).
Other researchers (since 2007) on the other hand have come to more positive conclusions about CSR professionals and their potential, role(s) and future. For example, Jamali et al. (2015) state that the CSR profession carries within it the potential to formulate and translate CSR into actual managerial practices (i.e. implementation) and outcome values. Also, a positive development is the growth of CSR professionals over the last two decades. Serafeim and Miller (2014) conclude that the number of organizations which employ a fulltime Chief Sustainability Officer doubled between 1995 and 2003 and once more between 2003 and 2008, which foreshadows a busy future for CSR professionals. And Risi (2014) declares that ‘over the past years there has been a steady professionalization of CSR-related functions’, which manifests itself in an increase of specialized practitioner conferences, auditor trainings and education programs on master and executive level.
How do CSR professionals influence the explicit process of establishing and/or improving GE? Apart from the already mentioned studies (CSR Asia, 2009; Corporate Responsibility Officers Association, 2011) little attention is payed to this specific connection. Other studies deals with how HR professionals influence CSR (Gond et.al, 2011); how ethics officers influence CSR (Rowe, 2006); how personal values of executives drive CSR (Hemingway &
33
Maclagan, 2004); how investors, consumers and workers counteract market failure(s) with ‘individual CSR’ (Bénabou & Tirole, 2010) – nevertheless, CSR professionals’ particular individual influence on GE is largely ignored. (Hence the incorporation of that aspect in the empirical research.)
Conclusion
In conclusion: CSR professionals are not going anywhere and can be found everywhere. After all, no matter which title, function or place companies allocate to this function, the formulated definition for this research of CSR professionals, casts a broad enough net to catch them and hold them for further questioning about their exact role in/influence on implementing CSR strategies to the benefit of GE. This is also necessary for thus far research about how CSR professionals influence CSR (e.g. how does their own gender influence the execution of CSR/GE strategies?) and consequently GE is sparse if not non-existent.
2.4 Gender equality CSF’s
Firstly, below GE in general is discussed. Secondly, this paragraph about the CSF’s of GE consists of four subparagraphs which discuss the following factors: communication (2.5.1), support (culture) (2.5.2), compatibility (2.5.3) and gender mainstreaming (2.5.4).
2.4.1 Gender equality: definition and goal
Simply put: at its core GE is treating women and men equally – i.e. without discriminating on a basis of gender – and thus giving both the same rights and opportunities across all sectors of society (“What is Gender Equality?”, n.d.).1 Or as Sharma (2009, pp. 791) puts it: ‘GEQ is
the extent to which people perceive men and women as equal in terms of social roles, capabilities, rights, and responsibilities.’ A more extensive definition is provided by the Council of Europe (1998) which goes as follows: ‘… an equal visibility, empowerment and participation of both sexes […] not synonymous with “sameness” [or] with establishing men […] as the norm… [it] means accepting and valuing equally the differences between women and men’ and their roles in society’ (pp. 7-8). In other words: GE is established when it is
1 Even though GE works both ways – in other words: men also should be protected against discrimination on
