IAG- Louvain School of Management Working Paper

MAINSTREAMING THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AGENDA:

A CHANGE MODEL GROUNDED IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

François Maon1,2 and Valérie Swaen, Université catholique de Louvain

Adam Lindgreen, University of Hull

1 François Maon, Department of Marketing, Louvain School of Management, Université catholique de Louvain, Place des Doyens 1, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Tel.: + 32(0)1047 8457. Fax: + 32(0)1047 8324. E-mail: maon@mark.ucl.ac.be. 2 The cases were developed by the first three authors who contributed equally. Thanks to Marlon Peeters who helped collecting data.

1

MAINSTREAMING THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AGENDA:

A CHANGE MODEL GROUNDED IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

ABSTRACT

In this article we introduce an integrative framework of Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR) design and implementation. We first present a concise review of CSR literature and

CSR implementation models and then develop a multiple-case study research. The resulting

framework based on a expansion of Lewin’s approach to change highlights four stages -

ranging from “raising CSR awareness” to “mainstreaming the CSR agenda” - that articulate

around nine key steps of the CSR implementation process. Finally, we highlight critical

success factors for CSR implementation.

2

MAINSTREAMING THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AGENDA:

A CHANGE MODEL GROUNDED IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has attained a high profile in the academic domain (de

Bakker, Groenewegen, & den Hond, 2005; Lockett, Moon, & Visser, 2006; Margolis &

Walsh, 2003; Walsh, Weber, & Margolis, 2003). As well, many consider it an absolute

necessity that organizations define their roles in society and apply social, ethical, legal, and

responsible standards to their businesses (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2004; Luo & Bhattacharya,

2006). CSR has achieved business prominence due to the activities of pressure groups and

also the emergence of the “market for virtues” such as Socially Responsible Investment

(Brammer & Millington, 2003; Vogel, 1978) that create further pressures to adopt CSR

initiatives (The Economist, 2005; Vogel, 2005). Moreover, CSR has spread geographically

from its original US setting (Bowen, 1953) to become a global concept (Matten & Crane,

2005; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007), becoming particularly well established in Europe (Habisch,

Jonker, Werner, & Schmidpeter, 2004).

From a CSR perspective, organizations are seen as key drivers in the process of constructing a

better world (Friedman & Miles, 2002) and are therefore under increasing pressure to

demonstrate good and accountable corporate responsibility (Pinkston & Carroll, 1994). In

addition to the prime requirement to deliver profits to shareholders, organizations are

frequently subject to wider stakeholder interests and the need to demonstrate a balanced

3

perspective. As a result, organizations are developing and updating their programs and

policies, and attempting to measure their social and environmental performance, whilst at the

same time engaging in consultations with stakeholders and, during this process,

communicating their values to employees, environmental groups, local communities, and

governments. The pressures are tangible as industry leaders such as Exxon, Nestlé, Nike, and

Pfizer have found, encountering severe setbacks to their reputation because of their failure to

maintain quality, ethical, and other socially responsible standards. By contrast, organizations

such as The Body Shop and Ben & Jerry’s have based their entire business model explicitly

on ethical foundations (Pearce II & Doh, 2005). Global leaders such as Johnson & Johnson,

HP, and Shell have publicly acknowledged their social and environmental responsibilities and

have developed processes to inform stakeholders using tools including sustainability reports,

responsible products, active engagement with NGOs, and positive participation in networks to

share best practice in the field of CSR (Engardio, Capell, Carey, & Hall, 2007; Kruse, 2005;

Norguet, 2005; Schouten & Remmé, 2006).

In summary, CSR has moved from ideology to reality and is now acknowledged as an

important dimension of contemporary business practice. Business leaders give increasing

importance to this topic, recognizing that CSR is an important component of business survival

and success in the 21st century. The management and marketing literature has significantly

contributed to defining and characterizing the phenomenon of CSR (de Backer et al., 2005;

Garriga & Melé, 2004) , as well as developing the discussion concerning best practice (Esty &

Winston, 2006; Savitz, 2006). However, an area that remains largely unexplored in the

literature concerns the development and implementation of CSR. Based on a series of in-

depth case studies, our paper seeks to develop a framework to help guide managers and to

4

identify some of the factors that contribute to CSR’s successful development and

implementation.

The remaining parts of the paper are organized as follows. First, we review aspects of CSR

including issues of its development and implementation. Second, we provide details on the

three cases developed for this study, including the methodology employed. Third, we present

the findings, including our integrative framework for the development and implementation of

CSR, as well as an identification of factors that are critical to a CSR program’s success.

Finally, we identify theoretical and managerial contributions, as well as point to possible

future avenues for research.

Literature Review

Definition of CSR

The concept and business awareness of CSR has evolved considerably since it first emerged

in the 1950s (de Bakker et al., 2005). Over this time, the concept has developed from

relatively uncoordinated and voluntary practices into more explicit commitments in response

to stakeholder pressures and eventually into ongoing future commitments. With these

changing perspectives of CSR a significant body of literature has been produced but the

problems of definition remain (Clarkson, 1995).

Due to the difficulties in defining CSR, alternative conceptualizations have been developed,

representing various aspects of the same concept of corporate “doing good”. Examining the

Web pages of Fortune 500 organizations, Kotler and Lee (2005) revealed the following

5

shopping list of related concepts corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship,

corporate philanthropy, corporate giving, corporate community involvement, community

relations, community affairs, community development, corporate responsibility, global

citizenship, and corporate societal marketing. Table 1 presents a summary list of definitions of

CSR derived from the literature.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

------------------------------

From Table 1 it can be seen that CSR practices may be considered as discretionary (Kotler &

Lee, 2005) or representing more sustained commitment (Holme & Watts, 2000). Similarly,

CSR activities could be construed as voluntary (European Commission, 2001) or more of a

commitment/obligation in nature (Anderson, 1989; Epstein, 1987; Jones, 1980). CSR

practices may also be conceived as dynamic and process based (Maclagan, 1998) or more

focused to a particular condition or state within a clearly defined boundary (Jones, 1980;

Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult, 1998). Finally, CSR activities may be directed towards all

stakeholders (Holme & Watts, 2000) or to a more specific group of stakeholders (Epstein,

1987; Maclagan, 1998).

From this multiplicity of definitions of CSR we choose the following definition of CSR: CSR

is a stakeholder-oriented concept that extends beyond the boundaries of the organization,

driven from an ethical understanding of the responsibility of the organization for the impact of

its business activities, seeking in return the willingness of society to accept the legitimacy of

the business (based on Gray, Owen, & Adams, 1996). We decided for the definition because it

is based upon the stakeholder concept and calls for a real integration of CSR into the

6

organization’s strategy. Also, the definition emphasizes that CSR should result in a win-win

situation for the company and its stakeholders.

7

Stakeholders

The concept of stakeholders is central to that of CSR. Stakeholders may be defined as "groups

and individuals who can affect, or are affected by, the achievement of an organization’s

mission" (Freeman, 1984: 54) or, alternatively "those groups who have a stake in or a claim

on the firm" (Evan & Freeman, 1988: 97). The concept of stakeholders may be given a wider

perspective as simply all those entities with a "critical eye" on corporate actors (Bomann-

Larsen & Wiggen, 2004). Stakeholders thus form a link between the aims and ambitions of

the organization and the expectations of society (Whetten, Rands, & Godfrey, 2002). This is a

dynamic activity, as expectations and pressures change and is further complicated by the need

for managers to resolve the interests of different stakeholders and to integrate this within the

managerial decision-making process. Managers must make decisions about the extent of their

responsibilities and the nature of the stakeholders to whom they are both responsible and

accountable.

Stakeholder theory emphasizes the organization survival and success hinges on the

organization’s ability to generate sufficient wealth, value, or satisfaction for its primary

stakeholders, but not exclusively for shareholders (Clarkson, 1988). For example, Post

Frederick, Lawrence and Weber (1996) see primary stakeholders as those who have direct

relationships essential for the organization to realize its mission in producing goods or

services for customers. Secondary stakeholders include social and political actors who support

the mission by providing their tacit approval of the organization’s activities, thereby making

them acceptable and giving the business credibility. Such secondary stakeholders include

local communities, governments, and NGOs.

8

Various analyses and specifications of stakeholders are also provided by the marketing

literature. Morgan and Hunt (1994) identify stakeholders in four categories: internal,

suppliers, buyers, and lateral stakeholders. Christopher, Payne and Ballantyne (1991) offer the

six-market model as a normative model for categorizing the stakeholder groups to which the

organization is responsible. These six market categories include customers, internal

customers, suppliers, influencers, recruitments, and referrals. Each of these markets can

influence positively or negatively the achievement of the organization’s mission and it is

argued that it is therefore desirable to manage actively the relationship with each of them.

CSR development and implementation

CSR strategy development and implementation could be considered as an organizational

change process (i.e., moving from a present to a future state; cf. Georges & Jones, 1995), or as

a new way of organizing and working (Dawson, 2003). The aim is to align the organization

with the dynamic demands of the business and social environment through the identification

and management of stakeholder expectations.

In addition to change, CSR involves learning over time and the ability to understand the

specific context and confluence of stakeholder expectations. Whilst there is no best way to

bring about change (Burnes, 1996) enhanced learning of stakeholder expectations and the

specifics of the context will help to ensure that change is beneficial and supported by

appropriate mechanisms (Burnes, 2004). This requires managers to understand and be actively

aware of both the context and expectations, but also to recognize that any changes they

implement will also shape the environment in turn (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003). The development

9

of CSR practices can therefore be seen as an evolutionary and recursive activity, acting and

reacting on and with the business environment.

When considering how CSR can be implemented the literature offers various insights.

However, to our knowledge most studies on CSR typically focus on limited aspects (Maignan,

Ferrell, & Ferrell, 2005). This means that an integrative framework has yet to be offered for

the development and implementation of CSR in a fashion that is soundly integrated to the

organization’s strategy, structure, and culture (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Smith, 2003).

Khoo and Tan (2002) suggest a cyclical process from preparation to transformation and

implementation to results, but offer little in terms of detailed guidelines. Panapaanan

Linnanen, Karvonen and Phan (2003) discuss five activities – organization and structure,

planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and communication and reporting –

emphasizing the importance of social risk assessment. Hardjono and de Klein (2004) review

models and studies derived from interpretive sociology and incorporated within the European

Corporate Sustainability Framework (ECSF), however whilst rigorous this framework does

not provide managerially relevant guidelines. The overview produced by Werre (2003) is a

rich and practice-based perspective of CSR implementation based on four stages or phases –

top-management awareness, formulation of a CSR vision and core corporate values, changing

organizational behavior, and anchoring of change – but this approach is relatively poorly

structured and consists more of general advice, and the application of the suggested

framework is bounded by the limits of the single case study on which it is based. The eight-

step approach identified by Maignan et al. (2005) provides more useful insights into the

development and management of CSR policies, but lacks in-depth implementation guidelines

as the linkage between strategy development and implementation is not explicated. Finally,

10

Cramer suggests six main activities that "fall into place like a jigsaw puzzle" (2005: 586).

These activities are as follows: list stakeholders’ expectations and demands; formulate a CSR

vision and mission and a code of conduct; develop CSR strategies and plan of action; set up

monitoring and reporting system; embed the process in quality and management systems; and

communicate about achieved results. However, the retrospective conclusion is limited in

terms of the guidance that it gives to managers despite the clear definition of the six main

activities that are provided. Table 2 summarizes existing frameworks for developing and

implementing a CSR orientation.

-------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

--------------------------------

From this analysis of CSR models and frameworks for the development and implementation

of a CSR orientation, it can be seen that the majority of studies base the definition of CSR

strategy on existing corporate norms and values. However, the frameworks proposed by

Maignan et al. (2005) and Panapaanan et al. (2003) stress the role of stakeholders and their

concerns. Yet these frameworks differ in the emphasis they give to the role of stakeholders in

either providing input into the development and implementation of CSR the activities, or

alternatively gaining feedback as part of the process improvement. This latter point of process

improvement by regarding CSR implementation as a cyclical process was consistent across

many of the frameworks discussed.

In attempting to integrate the differing perspectives of CSR development and implementation

into a single, integrative model, we developed a preliminary model that has been confronted

and refined by our multiple case study research (with the organizations being IKEA, Philips,

and Unilever).

11

Methodology

The qualitative case study approach is particularly useful where concepts and contexts are ill

defined, as it enables in-depth understanding and explanation to be derived (Eisenhardt,

1989), and where change is radical and unpredictable (Matthyssens & Vandenbempt, 2003).

Hence our research is inductive as we seek to augment our preliminary model by in-depth

understanding in order to achieve our research objectives (Blaikie, 1993). These objectives

are to develop a framework for the development and implementation of CSR practice, and to

elicit the factors that contribute to its successful implementation.

The cases were selected using theoretical sampling (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Coming from

different business sectors, the selected organizations are global and have strong reputations

for their investment in CSR. The three organizations are IKEA, Philips, and Unilever. IKEA

was selected due to its long history and experience in the area and its response to several

CSR-related crises and criticisms that has enabled the organization to develop structured

policies and a range of collaborations and initiatives with stakeholders. Philips has the number

one position in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and is also sector leader in the 2006

Covalence Ethical Ranking (Covalence, 2007). Philips produces a highly regarded

sustainability report on an annual basis. Unilever also publishes a detailed social and

environmental report. This organization is ranked sixth in the food industry category of the

Dow Jones Sustainability Index, and holds the leading position across all sectors of the

Covalence Ethical Ranking (Covalence, 2007).

In conducting the case studies, extensive research was undertaken in order to understand the

contextual issues surrounding each of the subject organizations. The aim of the data-collection

12

process was to develop rich in-depth case histories of CSR development and the respective

implementation processes. In order to improve rigor and understanding, secondary data was

obtained and interviews were conducted to assist in developing rich insights and to improve

generalisability. We interviewed senior managers who were responsible for the organizations’

CSR programs. These managers provided additional documentation and archival records.

Such documentation is important in providing stable and exact data (Yin, 2003), which can be

cross checked against other data sources in order to reduce selectivity and reporting bias. In

addition, news articles, web pages, scientific literature, promotional material, and other

literature were reviewed. Also, time was also spent at each case site resulting in additional

information from short conversations, observations, and other in situ techniques.

The cases were analyzed using Eisenhardt’s (1989) method of within-case and cross-case

analysis. Within-case analyses were conducted in order to summarize the data and develop

preliminary findings. Each case was analyzed to gain a richer understanding of the processes

each underwent to move towards a CSR vision. The outcomes of the within-case analyses

could then be compared and contrasted by cross-case analysis in order to improve the rigor

and quality of the results. That is, as each case achieved different degrees of CSR success the

cases were compared and contrasted to analyze similarities and differences and to gain greater

understanding of the processes involved. Cross-case analysis is essential for multiple case

studies (Yin, 2003). At the same time, theoretical categories were elaborated on during open

and axial coding procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Lastly, to gather a holistic and

contextualized comprehension of how organizations approach CSR development, and

implementation, in the analysis we tacked back and forth between literature and data, which

led to the development of a number of theoretical categories (Spiggle, 1994). Overall, the

13

process described was used to enrich the preliminary model shown in Figure 1 and to elicit

factors important in CSR implementation.

Various methods for improving the quality of the research were adopted throughout our study.

Consistent with the recommendations of interpretive researchers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985),

grounded theorists (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), and previous case-based research in business-to-

business marketing (Beverland, Napoli, & Lindgreen, 2007; Flint, Woodruff, & Gardial,

2002), we applied the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability,

integrity, fit, understanding, generality, and control to improve the trustworthiness of the

findings. These criteria included using experts to help select the cases, having the first three

authors provide independent interpretations of the findings, and allowing respondents to

provide feedback on initial findings. The interviews were conducted by the same interviewer,

and colleagues performed independent coding of the transcripts, which also helped to reduce

the role of bias (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Findings

Figure 1, which presents the final framework based on our literature review and multiple case

study analysis, is detailed below.

------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

-------------------------------

We developed the framework in Figure 1 from the perspective of Lewin’s (1951) force field

model of change. This model characterizes change as a state of imbalance between pressures

for and against change (Wilson, 1992). These pressures are denoted as driving and restraining

14

forces, respectively. By changing the equilibrium between driving and restraining forces

through the creation of pressure in favor of change, managers effect change (Burnes, 2004;

Lewin, 1951). Several recent change models have used Lewin’s (1951) model of change (e.g.,

Bamford & Forrester, 2003; Beverland & Lindgreen, 2007; Bullock & Batten, 1985). Lewin’s

model is consistent with such models and presents change as a finite activity.

There are three stages in Lewin’s (1951) model: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. In the

first stage, the process described requires managers to unfreeze past practices associated with

the status quo. Unlearning, therefore, is critical to a learning orientation and the development

of a CSR orientation. A key element in unlearning is the uncovering of long-held,

unchallenged, cultural assumptions concerning the ‘right way to do things’ (Schein, 1992).

Such assumptions, often sub-consciously held, must be resurfaced through a change

intervention – unfreezing process – and may result in energetic forces against the change

(Wilson, 1992). Barriers to the development of a CSR orientation include threats to stability,

fear of change, a belief that CSR orientation is inappropriate for the organization, and a belief

that focusing on CSR would result in the organization losing sight of its core values.

In the second stage, moving involves guiding the organization towards a new set of

assumptions (Lewin, 1951). The identification of the need to adopt a CSR orientation is just

the start of the change process. Our literature review identified practices predicted to be

involved in the development and implementation of a CSR orientation. In the third stage, to

affect a new state, managers must then refreeze cultural assumptions. Depending on the

degree of change necessary, refreezing may involve wider changes in order to build structures

and processes that support the new ways (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Critically, a learning

orientation is necessary to ensure the refreezing of CSR-oriented cultural values. An

15

organization’s learning orientation is a resource that influences the quality of CSR-related

behaviors. That is, in a learning organization employees are taught how to learn (generative

learning), which involves constantly reflecting on past strategies and approaches to business

rather than just learning through adaptation (trial and error) (Bell, Whitwell, & Lukas, 2002).

Additionally to these three stages, we included a fourth stage: sensitizing. In this stage, which

precedes the unfreezing stage, top management awareness is raised about the importance of

sustainability issues. A person or group of people seek to overcome resistance to change in

this stage.

The four stages incorporate the following nine steps: raising CSR awareness inside the

organization, assessing corporate purpose in a societal context, establishing a working

definition and vision for CSR, assessing current CSR status, developing an integrated CSR

strategic plan, implementing the CSR integrated strategic plan, maintaining internal and

external communication, evaluating CSR integrated strategies and communication and,

finally, institutionalizing CSR policy.

Step 1: Raising CSR awareness inside the organization

The raising of organizational sensitivity to organizational environment in general and CSR

issues in particular can be succinctly defined as resulting from the influence of four key

drivers: economic drivers, social drivers, political drivers and individual drivers. While the

three first drivers can be considered as market-based, usually initiating when an organization

anticipates or respond to a risk associated with societal impact of a particular business

practice (Mazurkiewicz, 2004), the last drivers appear to be value-based and highlights the

16

fact that CEOs usually orient the ethical norms for the organization (Agle, Mitchell, &

Sonnenfeld, 1999; Waldman & Siegel, 2005) and that employees also bring their values into

the workplace (Robertson, 1991). Our framework considers top-down processes (awareness

of top managers that influence CSR strategy and CSR implementation) as well as down-top

processes (awareness of employees, workers that influence their employers to include CSR

practices). Table 3 summarizes key CSR drivers.

-----------------------------

Insert Table 3 about here

------------------------------

The development and integration of a genuine CSR vision is often triggered by an evolution

in the way management actually perceives its business and societal environment. This

modification in management’ perception can be characterized either as reactive and resulting

from external pressures of the environment such as in the case of damaging media coverage,

NGO pressures and activists’ or communities’ protests (e.g. the repeated child labour issues

faced by IKEA during the 90’s that have been disclosed through the media) or proactive such

as in the case of the increasing weight of personal values of some individual or groups inside

the company, since CSR isn’t solely driven by external pressures but may also be championed

as a result of personal morality, inspired by managers or employees’ own socially oriented

personal values (Hemingway, 2005; Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004).

“CSR at IKEA has developed in the 80s when IKEA ran into some conflicts. These

were problems related to the use of raw materials and their functioning. (…) We had

to do something, because we were loosing a lot of market share (…). Internally, this

has been received positively, and people also expected us to make the right decisions

based on received knowledge. At the end of the ‘80s, a lot of people appeared with

17

knowledge on forestry, and our own co-workers were asking questions. So, there were

two reasons, one internally and one externally” (IKEA)

“That started at the end of the ‘60s and the ‘70s, and at that time, related to the

environmental area, one of the members of the Board of Management responsible for

Research & Development, participated in the Club of Rome where the report “Limits

to Growth” was published, and when he came back to Eindhoven, Frits Philips,

president at that time, said “We have to start an environmental department””

(PHILIPS)

Step 2: Assessing corporate purpose in its societal context

Uncovering corporate norms and values

“Values are the ideals and beliefs considered to be core to the company and used as

anchors to guide the behaviour of employees. These are the principles that determine

all aspects of the way the company does business – from simple day-to-day decision-

making through to defining its mission and vision” (Philips, 2002)

Corporate values play a critical role as a prerequisite in developing proactive CSR. In order to

improve organizational fit, “a CSR program must align with the values, norms, and mission of

the organization” (Maignan et al., 2005). Awareness and understanding of the company’s

vision and values and their relationships to the company core business practices is crucial. It

is therefore especially relevant to recognize the organizational values and norms that are

likely to have implication for CSR. By guiding behaviours and decisions within the

organization, corporate values support organizational efficiency in reaching its vision and

18

objectives. And by articulating corporate values and embedding them in management

practices, companies may hope to “reinforce behaviours that benefit the company and

communities inside and outside the firm, and which in turn strengthen the institution’s values”

(Van Lee, Fabish, & McGaw, 2005: 4). In order to define or redefine corporate values

companies might look at existing credos, corporate charters, mission statements, reports,

websites and other documents.

For instance, IKEA’s corporate values and organizational culture could be summarized as

(IKEA, 2004: 13): (a) Doing more with less: since its foundation, IKEA tries to avoid wasting

all sorts of resources; (b) Daring to be different: questioning how and why things are the way

they are, often opens up new avenues of approach; (c) Humanity and criticism: respect

people, opinions and skills, being able to admit own mistakes and learn from those and those

of others, and being able to accept constructive comments ; (d) Learning by listening: not only

to experienced or enlightened people, but also to nongovernmental organisations; (e) Honesty

is the best policy: enabling IKEA to build and enjoy long-term, close relationships, IKEA has

to be honest in its communication towards employees, customers, and in its relationships with

suppliers as well.

It is essential that the firm align its CSR goals and decision making with its overall goals and

strategies, so that taking CSR considerations into account in corporate decision making

becomes as natural as taking customer perspectives into account (Government of Canada,

2006).

“We are now 114 years old and sustainability is in our DNA (…) sustainability is from

before the term existed, because we were already acting sustainable for a long time,

19

(…) that is why it [sustainability] is so embedded in all the organisation’s activities”

(PHILIPS)

Next to finding existing norms, CSR activities and values inside the organization, it appears

relevant to create new norms and values with respect to CSR. Lyon (2004) emphasizes that in

order to incorporate CSR into long term strategy and decision-making criteria, the

organisation must make transition from a target-driven culture to a value-driven culture. The

organizations must therefore build upon corporate values to create an organizational culture

that is receptive to change and can sustain a CSR strategy over the long run.

“Acting as a sustainable entrepreneur means stepping back and looking at what drives

us as a company at the most basic level: our brand foundation, business strategy,

values and expectations for business excellence” (Philips, 2005: 18).

Identifying key stakeholders and critical stakeholders’ issues

“Locally, it is impossible to satisfy everybody [all stakeholders]” (IKEA)

A difficult dilemma for all managers who are faced with the integration of CSR within the

organization is to define which relevant stakeholders’ categories the company should

cooperate and participate with. Indeed, the primary objective for the company is to understand

the continuously changing objectives, values, demands and expectations of the people who

have a stake in their businesses (Freeman 1984; Jonker, & Foster 2002). The dilemma is not

only the choice in stakeholders the company has to make, but rather the large diversity in

stakeholder groups and their various (intrinsic) and often conflicting values, objectives,

expectations and demands, and which have to be satisfied as a minimum.

20

“The external stakeholders are not only the customers, but also governments, people

living near IKEA stores and distribution centres, and suppliers, these are all viewed as

main stakeholders” (IKEA)

“Stakeholders are divided into different groups, for instance media, and academia and

other universities, of course customer research and contacts with non governmental

organisations and not in the last place the suppliers, and other business partners...”

(PHILIPS)

Clearly identifying who are the companies’ stakeholders allows avoiding the misplacement of

resources on non-stakeholders or stakeholders who reveal no legitimate interest or concern.

Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) consider that stakeholders’ categories can be identified by

their attributed possession of three key attributes: (1) the stakeholder's power to influence the

firm, (2) the legitimacy of the stakeholder’s relationship with the firm, and (3) the urgency of

the stakeholder’s claim on the firm. Based on the analysis by managers of the presence of the

three attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency, the salience or “the degree to which

managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims” (Mitchell et al., 1997: 854) can then

be defined and stakeholders and their respective issues prioritized. Driscoll and Starik (2004)

have adapted Mitchell et al. (1997)’s model, and added proximity as a fourth attribute,

explaining the distance between company and stakeholder type. Bryson (2004), Bryson,

Cunningham and Lokkesmoe (2002) or Eden and Ackerman (1998) further provide tools and

methods for mapping and identifying critical stakeholders along the dimensions of power,

interest and influence.

21

Unilever identified seven stakeholder groups as being important, namely (Unilever, 2001: 4):

(1) shareholders, (2) employees, (3) consumers, (4) suppliers and trade customers as business

partners, (5) government, (6) local communities and societies where Unilever does business,

(7) academics and others with whom Unilever conducts research. Unilever conducts research

among stakeholders to figure out their opinions about Unilever’s values and planned practices

and activities (Cormack, 2002). This helped Unilever to develop their CSR methodology,

eventually adapted according to their stakeholders’ views (Cormack, 2002).

It should be noted that CSR issues and influence of stakeholders are likely to vary both within

and across industries and countries (Swaen & Maignan, 2000). For example, while U.S.

organizations must pay attention to small investors’ demands, this is not the case in most

European countries where stock ownership is not as widespread as in the U.S. Another

example is a manufacturing company’s concern about its environmental record. The concern

will depend on whether the company is dealing with corporate or with end-customers. In the

latter case the company might be especially wary of negative media publicity or consumer

boycotts, whereas in the former case the company might be worried about maintaining a good

reputation among its few business partners (Swaen & Maignan, 2000).

“At Philips, we have a good opinion on which issues are important for them

(stakeholders) (…) a few years ago we started on investigate what [kind of social

activities] happened at Philips, all very fragmented based on too many decisions. We

did not want that, so we decided to focus on specific themes that fitted in our

organisation. That is how we decided to focus on healthcare and education”

(PHILIPS)

22

Step 3: Establishing a vision and a working definition for CSR

Having clarified internal values and norms as well as key stakeholders and their issues, this

leads the organization to define a common meaning for CSR that allows for creating a socially

responsible shared vision including stakeholders’ expectations and that would be compatible

with long term strategic goals and the company. The development of a working definition for

CSR is essential to enable managers and stakeholders to work in the same direction as well as

for establishing foundations for the latter CSR assessment (Government of Canada, 2006).

According to Maignan et al. (2005), the working definition of CSR or CSR commitments

must essentially shed light on two key elements: (1) the motivation supporting the

commitment to CSR, and (2) the stakeholders and issues that have been identified as of

outmost importance by the organization. The working definition for CSR must allow building

a constructive socially responsible vision.

“We are committed to contributing to sustainable development and work with other

businesses, civil society organisations and governments towards achieving this goal.

We recognise this as a commercial imperative as we will only be able to maximise

shareholder value and prosper in the long term if we operate in a more sustainable

way” (UNILEVER)

A strong leader is able of creating a vision for the future is aligned to the demands from the

environment; also, the leader must communicate this vision in an inspiring way so that

employees act accordingly.

23

“Eventually it is about what radiates the chairman, what he does, and then you don’t

even have to talk about it because you know it is OK.” (PHILIPS)

“Last year IKEA’s highest boss visited also a few projects, to get the feeling that

IKEA “is doing good” and to see for himself that IKEA participating in it is a good

case” (IKEA)

This socially responsible vision must not only be formulated and declared by top management

but also formalized and communicated through official documents such as annual reports,

corporate brochures and online information. It should be carefully designed by top

management in accordance with identified corporate values and formulated in order to fit with

current personal values of the employees (Werre, 2003).

Step 4: Assessing current CSR status

Auditing current CSR practices

Existing mission statements, policies, codes of conduct, principles and other operating

documents are logical candidates for review, as are external documents associated with

programs or initiatives in which the firm is involved. Focusing first on existing statements,

policies, code of conducts and other CSR-related documents. Second consultation of key

managers representing key business functions inside the organization and consulting CSR and

industry experts should be considered. Being open to working with a consulting firm to

scrutinize the organization's current policies and practices might then be appropriate

(O’Connell, 2004).

24

The objective of this inventory is to identify organizational characteristics relating to five key

CSR aspects that are (1) the social and (2) environmental dimensions and impacts of

organizational activities, (3) the corporate governance issues, (4) the corporate commitment to

sustainability, and (5) the societal dialogue process.

Another practical CSR audit methodology is provided by Morimoto, Ash and Hope (2005)

and is based on the analysis of current CSR literature and interviews conducted with a number

of interested and knowledgeable stakeholders that have been previously identified. This

methodology appears especially relevant since social auditing through engaging stakeholders

via dialogue then be applied to build trust, identify commitment and promote co-operation

amongst stakeholders and corporations (Gao & Zhang, 2006).

“IKEA uses external knowledge to figure out whether it is doing the right thing, like

with environmental organisations (Greenpeace, WWF). (…) IKEA does consult them

every year” (IKEA)

Given the complexity and the scope of CSR concept, it is not surprising that a variety of

procedures have been developed to assess the level of an organization’s responsibility.

SA8000, AA 1000, Global Reporting Initiative are just a few examples of such auditing

procedures.

Benchmarking competitors’ practices and CSR norms and standards

Benchmarking CSR practices should allow the company to continue to highlight what should

remain and give competitive advantage, and to identify inappropriate activities with respect to

25

CSR. Benchmarking criteria should be defined in accordance with the characteristics of the

industry sector under scrutiny.

Benchmarking competitors’ CSR practices should include three broad critical steps. First,

identifying and selecting the best performers for each CSR-related issue to be benchmarked

on the basis of the organization’s industry knowledge for industry-specific issues and on the

basis of recognized CSR champions for what concerns CSR more general issues. Secondly,

identifying norms and standards used or developed by competitors and measuring the

performance of the best-in-class companies for each benchmark being considered. Finally,

comparing with the organization’s performance for each variable to determine the gap

between the organisation and the best performers.

“On top of that, all products’ and services’ development processes are checked on

environmental soundness (EcoDesign), which is embedded as a permanent part in the

product creation process. This resulting in time in knowing which environmental

improvements can be implemented in a new product or an existing product that is

redesigned. These [improvements] are then implemented, (…) Then, the top products

are benchmarked against [products of] competitors and against other products. We call

these products Green Flagships” (PHILIPS)

Learning from peers and sharing experience is also possible through networks that offer

business managers learning, benchmarking, and capacity building opportunities, as well as the

possibility of creating a dialogue between the organizations and its stakeholders: European

policy makers, governments, investors, social partners, civil society, and academics. CSR

Europe is the leading European business network for CSR with over 60 leading multinational

26

organizations as members (Unilever is one of those members). Since its inception in 1995, the

mission of CSR Europe has been to help organizations integrate CSR into the way they do

business, every day. CSR Europe has launched a European Roadmap for a sustainable and

competitive enterprise. This Roadmap serves as a set of goals and strategies to integrate CSR

in daily business practices. CSR Europe offers daily practical assistance and information on

demand; business seminars in order to exchange practical solutions on issues such as diversity

and employability; access to over 250 CSR best practices; and finally engaging with

stakeholders.

“We are also members of a range of corporate responsibility organisations at national

and regional levels, such as Business for Social Responsibility in the United States,

Instituto Ethos in Brazil and CSR Europe” (UNILEVER)

“I do have a lot of contact with colleagues from other companies and especially those

who in my opinion would be or are possible partners. I am consulting the Raad van de

Nederlandse Detailhandel a lot, and mainly the bigger retail companies like KBB.

These consultations are to find out who is doing what” (IKEA)

Step 5: Developing a CSR integrated strategic plan

Many companies want to invest in CSR activities but have some problems to integrate CSR

into their strategy: “In any company, drawing up short- and longer-term strategies is a familiar

procedure. What is often still missing up till now is the integration of the three P’s (planet,

people and profit) into the strategy and the action plans which derive from it” (Cramer, 2005).

27

A first step is to translate values, vision or policy statement into commitments, expectations or

guiding principles (e.g. code of business conduct and ethics). Goals can then be set together

with the development of targets and performance measures.

“We think it helps us improving our management, so it is not an add-on like “oh, it

costs extra money, and in some instances money will be earned,” but we do think that

it can be an advantage in bringing Philips products and services to the customers. This

thinking has started mainly four to five years ago, and it is exposed for instance via the

by Philips formulated strategy maps and green marketing. It is called the sustainability

business concept. (…) In 2003, Philips started with a specific management agenda for

sustainability (…) we have also defined key performance indicators for sustainability,

what resulted in a lot of attention [for sustainability] – to that developments [regarding

sustainability] in this company also go faster” (PHILIPS)

Other supporting factors include developing an integrated CSR enabling structure (define

responsibilities). For instance, designate a senior official or a committee responsible for

overall CSR implementation; improving interfunctional coordination; building CSR

responsibilities into employees' job descriptions and performance evaluations; the recruitment

of people knowledgeable in CSR with appropriate attitudes and skills; and finally developing

a regular forum to share issues and knowledge across the company, produces new ideas, and

increase visibility. At UK retailer Marks & Spencer, the corporate responsibility policy is set

by the CSR committee, which is led by the company chairman and made up of key directors

and managers. But the committee relies on the CSR Team to embed the policy throughout the

business. "We have to make sure that there's a link between decisions made by the CSR

committee and the operational side of the business," says Ed Williams, head of corporate

28

responsibility. "Nothing will happen if it just remains with the CSR committee. We make sure

that our people are in touch with stakeholder expectations and that they're developing their

policies and actions accordingly to achieve a win-win." The two CSR forums are the main

vehicles for achieving those. Each is chaired by senior line managers.

Step 6: Implementing CSR integrated strategic plan

Several organizations have developed guidelines for successful CSR implementation. The

Canadian government offers several particular useful and relevant detailed guidelines and

checkpoints helping the organization during the implementation (Government of Canada,

2006). The Canadian guide mentions the importance of employees and key stakeholders in the

successful implementation of a CSR orientation. Although top management decides about

CSR direction and strategy, middle management and employees are the ones who have to

implement CSR in reality. The middle management’s role is “to put into effect the direction

established by top management by making sure that resources are allocated and controlled

appropriately, monitoring performance and behaviour of staff, and where necessary,

explaining the strategy to those reporting to them” (Johnson & Scholes, 2002: 552). In

addition, the middle management helps to communicate and perform the top-down decided

vision and CSR implementation.

Employees are often a firm's human face capable of acting as ambassadors, advocates and

sources of new ideas and information on CSR. On the other hand, if not properly engaged,

employees and suppliers could be a source of problems for all concerned. Therefore, it is

vitally important that there are good communication between top management and employees

about CSR strategy and implementation. Engaging employees in implementation means

29

focusing on awareness. Employees should receive context for and background on the firm's

approach to CSR, including the motivation for engaging in it, why the approach was adopted,

its relevance to the organization, how it fits with existing firm objectives, how it changes

current approaches, and other implications. Involving employees in discussions of how CSR

commitments are implemented is a way for these stakeholders to develop a sense of

ownership of and pride in the firm's CSR activities (Government of Canada, 2006).

Employees’ training with respect to CSR could also be used to create awareness and make it

easier for employees to see that CSR issues impact themselves and their close environment.

IKEA's Co-worker Environment and Social Responsibility Training program was created in

response to the company's first environmental action plan, launched in 1992. The training

covers IKEA's worldwide environmental and social policies, programs, goals and

performance, and all aspects of business operations, such as suppliers, transportation waste

management, CO2 emissions, product design and packaging. The program is also designed to

show employees how they can help the company achieve its goals in these areas.

“There is a standardised training package, which is adapted per country. (…) That is a

first step, to pass on a feeling about what IKEA does, training and communication

overall are the means to pass on the feeling what is expected from a co-worker”

(IKEA)

“Philips provides workshops [on sustainability] and is very busy with embedding

[sustainability] in all training activities - for my own sustainability network placed on

divisional and corporate level we have developed a separate corporate curriculum, a

special learning programme to look whether we meet the requirements and what we

30

still have to learn. Next, we have a separate e-learning tool within the organisation”

(PHILIPS)

Enthusiasm around a CSR program can be created by providing regular updates on the

program’s progress. Another possibility is to develop incentives such as rewarding employees

for relevant suggestions and to incorporate CSR performance elements in job description so

that employees are rewarded for CSR achievement but penalized for non conformance. Only

if the incentives are compatible to this more comprehensive view of stakeholder expectation

and contribution will managers' values change and firms will be able to create more

sustainable organizational wealth (Sachs & Ruhli, 2005).

“In 2005, we dismissed 66 people for breaches of our Code (compared to 89 in 2004)”

(Unilever, 2006: 30)

“Philips gives supplier opportunities to assess themselves via a self-assessment tool,

Philips audits the suppliers itself, and trains suppliers to make sure they will comply or

keep complying to the rules. (…) The supplier is given the opportunity to improve

himself, but in case non compliance keeps existing, at the end Philips has to terminate

its relationship with such a supplier” (PHILIPS)

Corporate activities and employees’ activities that are not in line with CSR principles and the

designed CSR strategy should be detected at an early stage because the image of the

organization can otherwise suffer. Therefore, it is important to put in place mechanisms and

processes that will allow for early detection, reporting, and resolution of problematic activity.

Organizations could consider anonymous hotlines, e-mail boxes, and ombudspersons

31

(Government of Canada, 2006). Care must be taken to ensure that not only are the

mechanisms for dealing with the problems designed well, but also that they are the option of

last resort. A senior manager should be assigned responsibility for investigating and reporting

compliance on these issues.

Step 7: Communication about CSR commitments and performance

Continuous internal communication about CSR commitments increases awareness of CSR.

Therefore an internal communication plan should be developed, identifying the

communication means including newsletter, annual reports, meetings, and trainings. During

the moving phase, the communication will consist in reporting the change and reassuring

employees by informing them on the program’s progress, as well as on misconceptions in

relation to the CSR implementation process. Doing this allows the top management and CSR

team to get input as to effect of the implementation process, to develop sophisticated

knowledge among all supervisory management personnel, and to clearly identify and

delineate role relationships and expectations (Klein, 1996). During the refreezing stage, needs

are more concerned with publicizing and demonstrating the success of the CSR program, as

well as anchoring the CSR vision in the day-to-day activities of the organization (Klein,

1996).

Using collateral such as newsletters and magazines or other frequent multimedia delivery is

particularly useful, especially in the refreezing stage where celebrating success is essential to

institutionalize the process, but also in the moving phase – next group meetings at each level

of the hierarchy - in order to maintain regular and continuous information.

32

“Readme is an internal magazine, directed at co-workers. It also published a lot about

CSR issues. (…) Readme is not sent to suppliers, but in case a supplier is mentioned, it

can be send to the particular supplier. It is a magazine purely focused internally”

(IKEA)

With regards to external communication, organizations are faced with greater demands for

detailed information regarding the social and environmental impacts of their activities (Burchell

& Cook, 2006). Responding to demands for transparency, many organizations publish

information on how they fulfill their responsibilities to stakeholders (Dawkins, 2004). Many

organizations’ annual reports already include non-financial information; many organizations

also publish separate reports on their social and environmental activities even though there is no

legal obligation for them to reveal this kind of information (Bollen, 2004).

Our analysis of IKEA's media advertising to the general public demonstrates that the

organization seldom includes direct references to its CSR commitments. There is, for

example, no mention of CSR in the nine key messages IKEA conveys to customers: the

"IKEA concept," the "IKEA product range," "home furnishing specialist," "low price,"

"function," the "right quality," "convenient shopping," a "day out for the whole family," and

"Swedish" (IKEA, 2006; Lewis, 2005). Instead, IKEA stresses its emphasis on the family and

the environment, its Swedish roots, and, in turn, the solidarity and egalitarianism traditionally

associated with Sweden. Explains Jean-Louis Baillot, CEO of IKEA France, "people consider

that IKEA has an environmental behavior" because of its Scandinavian roots, which means

that "it is ultimately not inevitably necessary to speak about it" (Comité 21, 2004). However,

IKEA stores' brochures contained information relating to various products' environmental

impact. The catalogs used to include two pages devoted to CSR themes, but such information

33

have disappeared from the latest editions. Inside stores, customers could also read about

IKEA's cause-related marketing campaigns and cooperative actions with Save the Children

and UNICEF, as well as review "green panels" that advised them about good consumption

practices. Information about the organization's CSR polices can also be found in public codes

of conduct, brochures, and annual reports through the national IKEA Web sites.

IKEA's first social and environmental responsibility report was published in 2004 (for the

year 2003). This first report described how IKEA had incorporated CSR into its entire supply

chain and its collaboration with various NGOs. Anders Dhalvig, CEO of IKEA, declared at

that time that IKEA's partners "have been eager to start working seriously with these issues

and have progressed step by step, but it is only now, when we have accomplished a little

more, that it seems right to start telling the rest of the world about it." The CEO also stressed

that it was best to remain humble about what the organization had accomplished so far,

"because there is so much more that still remains to be done" (IKEA, 2004: 36). IKEA has

chosen to be cautious in communicating about its CSR is to avoid promoting "itself as a target

for anti-globalization organizations who focus on big brand names like ours despite our many

community- and environment-friendly policies and contributions" (Marianne Barner, quoted

in Lewis, 2005, p. 175).

More clearly involved in a refreezing process, Philips recently provided much more detailed

CSR reports compared to IKEA. Philips view this report as a valuable tool for “maintaining a

dialogue with a variety of interested parties, including shareholders, customers, business

partners, governmental and non-governmental organizations and, of course, Philips

employees around the world, who work daily to improve the organization’s performance”

(Philips, 2005: 2). At Unilever, its website is considered a central tool to provide annually

34

updated communication on progress, explaining how they are implementing CSR principles

across the whole business (Unilever, 2007: 24).

The three cases illustrate that organizations should be ready to communicate externally what

has already been realized and what is still to achieve. Corporate decisions related to the nature

and the level of communication about CSR practices are complex. The need to communicate

about CSR commitments varies according to stakeholders, the importance they put on CSR

issues, and the potential harmful impact and influence of the stakeholders on the concerned

organization. Having clearly identified key stakeholders and their expectations, as well as

maintaining continuous CSR dialogue remain cornerstones of the CSR communication

strategy.

Step 8: Evaluating CSR integrated strategies and communication

To improve the CSR program, evaluation should be based on measuring, verifying, and

reporting. The objectives are to determine what is working well, why, and how to ensure that

it will continue; investigate what is not working well and why this is the case; explore barriers

to success and what can be changed to overcome these barriers; and to revisit original goals

and make new ones judged as necessary (Government of Canada, 2006).

Regular formal review of CSR activities enables stakeholders to be informed of progress and

activities and provides visibility and transparency of activities. The audit process is widely

understood as such a mechanism, and is the threshold by which performance and expectations

are matched. The value of such audits is increased if the process is seen and acknowledged to

be rigorous. This may be achieved by a range of mechanisms such as the involvement of

35

external auditors and publishing of standards of performance against targets. The results of

such audits can then be disseminated as evidence of conformance. Finally, stakeholders can

be invited to verify the organization’s CSR performance.

“The next step is to follow up those codes of conduct by organising audits at several

levels: by IKEA (doing business, contractual agreements with suppliers) and

monitoring by external partners what has been done the last eight years (…) IKEA

conducts audits in three ways: the people who make appointments, IKEA’s own

IWAY auditors, and audits by KPMG, PriceWaterhouseCoopers etc” (IKEA)

“Regarding publicity, for instance the journalists and media, Philips measures its

external communication in a KPI: 250 printed media are scanned to measure the

amount of articles on Philips and sustainability and to measure whether these articles

are favourable” (PHILIPS)

Step 9: Institutionalizing CSR

With the introduction of any new initiative in a company, the question is how one can

maintain momentum and ensure continuation of the initiative? The danger exists that an

initiative, which started with enthusiasm does not survive in the organisation. Especially in

times of economic recession, there is a big risk that the initiative will die (Cramer, 2005).

"Sustainability can't be successfully addressed in isolation or as an 'add-on' to our day-

to-day business (…) All functions, businesses and regions must be involved in

managing sustainability issues. It's embedded in our corporate strategy, our

36

manufacturing and products, and our extended business system”" (Barbara Kux, Chief

Procurement Officer, in Philips 2004)

To be sustainable such activities need to be institutionalised into the organization and seen to

be inherent to the culture and adopted as part of the long term strategy and decision making.

The commitment of resources and rewards/penalties for achievement are powerful and

symbolic indications of commitment.

“It is our firm belief that socially and environmentally responsible behaviour

contributes to sustained profitable growth and value creation. That is why we are

embedding sustainability thinking and acting in all of our daily activities” (Philips,

2005: 24).

Continuous stakeholder dialogue

To align with stakeholders' interests and create long-term value, organizations have to

develop, apply, and maintain the necessary management competences and capabilities to deal

with stakeholder concerns over time” (Ayuso, Rodriguez, & Ricart, 2006). Stakeholder

dialogue is essential during the whole process of CSR development and implementation.

When developing the CSR program, initiating a structured CSR dialogue is essential to

identify and respond to expectations and to deal with key concerns. Ensuring that there is a

consensus about the nature of the working definition for CSR and the socially responsible

vision of the organisation is then crucial (Draper, 2006).

37

“Because sustainability requires open, honest dialogue with our internal and external

stakeholders, we are working to create more structure around stakeholder interactions.

This is critical in helping us effectively manage the issues that are important to our

various constituencies” (Philips, 2005: 5)

During the implementation phase, maintaining stakeholder dialogue and deepening

collaboration with key stakeholders allow the development of knowledge and know-how on

specific issues faced by the organisation. In the case of IKEA, for example, the organization

paid considerable attention to its relationships with WWF and UNICEF. The parties entered

into an ongoing dialogue, trusted each other, and made compromises along the way, resulting

in highly successful relationships. This example demonstrates the importance of involving

external stakeholders in the monitoring process, which indicates the organization is willing to

change its CSR policies and thereby signals its credibility to the outside world.

“Listening and learning from all stakeholders helps us achieve our business goals and

is central to our approach. Our business success depends on relationships of mutual

benefit with many people” (UNILEVER)

When it comes to evaluation of CSR policies, the transparency of the stakeholder dialogue is

a key driver of future improvement. Such transparency has further been shown as playing a

positive role in the construction of stakeholders’ attitudes towards the organization (Maon,

Swaen, & Lindgreen, 2006). Indeed, stakeholders who are engaged in a regular and

transparent dialogue with an organization demonstrate less skepticism than do other

stakeholders.

38

“We also engage with specialist stakeholders and learn from their feedback. In 2005,

through a series of structured stakeholder discussions, we received suggestions on

improving our social and environmental reporting from a cross-section of international

experts and have taken their comments on board in producing this report”

(UNILEVER)

Continuous constructive dialogue in the refreezing phase then contributes to shore up

weaknesses and correct deficiencies in order to institutionalize the CSR vision and processes

and allowing a credible publication of the results achieved. Table 4 offers valuable insights on

stakeholder dialogue by illustrating how Philips continuously keeps in touch with

stakeholders through exchange and dialogue mechanisms that are tailored according to the

categories of stakeholders that are addressed, using surveys, focus groups, networking

practices, meetings, etc., depending on the nature of the relation with the concerned

stakeholders.

{Insert Table 4 about here}

To conclude our findings, Table 5 summarises the different factors that play a key role in the

CSR implementation process. Those critical factors for CSR implementation to be successful

have been identified at the managerial level, the organizational level, and the corporate level.

{Insert Table 5 about here}

39

Discussion

Our article addressed the following questions. First, we identified that Lewin’s (1951)

planned change model captured the dynamics of adopting a CSR orientation. Second, we

combined planned change theories with the limited research on implementing a CSR

orientation. Based on three case organizations, we identified four stages in the process of

developing and implementing CSR in an organization. Also, we posited that these stages

encompass nine steps the role and importance vary across the stages. Our findings were

supported with real time industry data, providing the first examples of the process of change

towards CSR orientation. As such, our article both identifies new insights and extends extant

theory by building on previous research (Cramer, 2005; Hardjono & de Klein, 2004; Khoo &

Tan, 2002; Maignan et al., 2005; Panapaanan et al., 2003; Were, 2003). Finally, we identified

factors that are critical to the successful development and implementation of CSR orientation.

These factors cover the corporate, organizational, and managerial levels.

Limitations and future research

Our paper highlights the imperative need of developing more comprehensive frameworks

when it comes to CSR policies design and implementation. In that perspective, the developed

framework consists of an extensive effort of synthesizing key challenges and facilitators in the

CSR design and implementation process. It appears essential in order to bring the reflection

on CSR practices at a relevant and constructive operational level.

As is the case for most research, our study has several limitations that affect our

interpretations and that therefore must be considered. First, the study of process would be

improved if it were conducted in real time and longitudinally, rather than relying on historical

40

information and respondent recall. Also, instead of relying on the recall of a few

organizational members future research would benefit from interviews with a range of

stakeholders. This would, for example, identify the tension involved in managing the CSR

program across different stakeholders. Finally, our results focused on radical planned change

efforts whereas future research could examine more evolutionary, emergent efforts including

for example organizations are already closer to a CSR orientation. Also, we rely on examining

the CSR programs of three organizations in very different industry sectors. Future research

should carry out additional case studies to challenge our findings, as generalizing across

industry sectors can be difficult. These limitations should be considered when interpreting our

results, but despite them, we believe our study offers several important contributions.

Managerial implications

The findings give rise to a number of insights into the practice of CSR. First, the four-stage

model of change identified in Figure 1 provides the beginning of a road map for managers

seeking to implement CSR-oriented change. Our framework can also be adopted by

organizations requiring more evolutionary change efforts. Organizations that already have a

set of CSR-oriented values but struggle to implement them effectively may be able to address

immediately issues of refreezing. The organizations could do so by, perhaps, building in

feedback systems and identifying short-term wins. Apart from this, our findings also identify

that given the need to work across many functions to successfully execute the CSR program,

managers should invest in internal marketing programs that educate members in the

organization on the CSR program’s success, as well as CSR-relevant activities. Such internal

marketing programs should be reinforced with a reconfiguration of human resource control

systems to ensure buy-in to the CSR program.

41

References

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J.A. 1999. Who Matters to CEOs? An

Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO

Values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 507–525.

Albareda, L., Tencati, A., Lozano, J.M., & Perrini, F. 2006. The government's role in

promoting corporate responsibility: a comparative analysis of Italy and UK from the

relational state perspective. Corporate Governance, 6(4): 386 – 400.

Anderson, J.W., Jr. 1989. Corporate Social Responsibility: Guidelines for Top Management.

New York: Quorum Books.

Ayuso, S., Rodriguez, M.A., & Ricart, J.E. 2006. Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for

new ideas: a dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corporate Governance,

6(4): 475-490.

Bamford, D. R., & Forrester, P. L. 2003. Managing planned and emergent change within an

operations management environment’, International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, 23(5): 546–564.

Bell, S.J., Whitwell G.J., & Lukas, B.A.. 2002. Schools of Thought in Organizational

Learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1):70-86.

Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. 2007. Implementing market orientation in industrial firms: a

multiple case study, Industrial Marketing Management, 36(4): 430-442.

Beverland, M., Napoli, J., & Lindgreen, A. 2007. Industrial global brand leadership: a

capabilities view. Industrial Marketing Management, forthcoming.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. 2004. Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How

Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review,

47(1): 9-25.

Blaikie, N. 1993. Approaches to Social Enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press

42

Bollen, A. 2004. The Rise and Rise of Non-Financial Reporting: How to Use Research to

Measure Your Reputation. MORI White Paper, January, http://www.ipsos-

mori.com/publications/ahb/rise-and-rise.pdf, [accessed April 24, 2007].

Bomann-Larsen, L. and Wiggen, O. (Eds.). 2004. Responsibility in World Business:

Managing Harmful Side-effects of Corporate Activity. Tokyo: United Nations University

Press.

Bowen, H. R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper &

Brothers.

Brammer, S. & Millington, A. 2003. The Effect of Stakeholder Preferences, Organizational

Structure and Industry Type on Corporate Community Involvement. Journal of Business

Ethics, 45(3): 213-26.

Bryson, J.M. 2004. What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and

analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1): 21-53.

Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. & Lokkesmoe, K. L. (2002). What to Do When stakeholders

Matter: The Case of Problem Formulation for the African American Men Project of

Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62(5): 568-584.

Bullock, R.J., & Batten, D. 1985. It's Just a Phase We're Going Through: A Review and

Synthesis of OD Phase Analysis. Group & Organization Studies, 10(4): 383-411.

Burchell, J., & Cook, J. 2006. It’s Good to Talk? Examining Attitudes Towards Corporate

Social Responsibility Dialogue and Engagement Processes. Business Ethics: A European

Review, 15 (2): 154-170.

Burnes, B. 1996. No such thing as…a “one best way” to manage organizational change.

Management Decision, 34 (10):11–18.

Burnes, B. 2004. Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics

(4th edn). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

43

Christopher, M., Payne, A., & Ballantyne, D. 1991. Relationship Marketing. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Clarkson, M. B. 1988. Corporate social performance in Canada, 1976-86. In L. E. Preston

(Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy: 241-265. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Clarkson, M. B. 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate

Social Performance. Academy of Management Review. 20 (1): 92-117.

Comité 21. 2004. Conference of IKEA France's CEO Jean-Louis Baillot at the meeting of the

French Comité 21, March 23, 2004,

http://www.comite21.org/rencontres_debats/rd2004/baillot.pdf, [accessed June 22, 2006].

Cormack, M. 2002. Unilever’s Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility – From Policy

to Ptactice. Presentation made at the West LB conference on Social Responsible

Investment, 28 May: Frankfurt. http://geekt.org/u/matt/admin/haas/ethics/uniliver.pdf

[accessed April 24, 2007].

Covalence. 2007. Covalence Ethical Ranking 2006. Geneva: Covalence S.A.

Cramer, J. M. 2005. Experiences with structuring corporate social responsibility in Dutch

industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(6): 583-592.

Crane, A., & Matten, D. 2003. Business Ethics: a European Perspective. Managing

Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalisation. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

CSR Europe. 2003. What is Corporate Social Responsibility?,

http://www.csreurope.org/aboutus/FAQ/#csr, [accessed April 10, 2007].

Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. 1975. Business and Society: Environment and Responsibility.

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

44

Dawkins, J. 2004. The Public’s Views of Corporate Responsibility 2003. MORI White Paper,

February, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/jld/publics-views-of-corporate-

responsibilty.pdf, [accessed April 24, 2007].

Dawson, P. 2003. Understanding Organisational Change: Contemporary Experience of

People at Work. London: Sage.

De Bakker, F.G.A., Groenewegen, P. & Den Hond, F. 2005. A Bibliometric Analysis of 30

Years of Research and Theory on Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social

Performance. Business & Society, 44(3): 283-317.

de la Cuesta González, M., & Valor Martinez, C. 2004. Fostering Corporate Social

Responsibility Through Public Initiative: From the EU to the Spanish Case. Journal of

Business Ethics, 55(3): 275-293.

Draper, S. 2006. Corporate responsibility and competitiveness at the meso level: key models

for delivering sector-level corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance, 6(4): 409-419.

Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. 2004. The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual

Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment. Journal of Business

Ethics, 49(1): 55-73.

Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. 1998. Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management.

London: Sage.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.

Engardio, P., Capell, K., Carey, J., & Hall, K. 2007. Beyond The Green Corporation; Imagine

a world in which eco-friendly and socially responsible practices actually help a company's

bottom line. It's closer than you think. Business Week, January 29: 50.

45

Epstein, E. M. 1987. The Corporate Social Policy Process: Beyond Business Ethics,

Corporate Responsibility, and Corporate Social Responsiveness. California Management

Review, 29(3): 99–114.

Esty, D.C., & Winston, A.S. 2006. Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use

Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

European Commission. 2001. Promoting a European framework for corporate social

responsibility. Brussels: COM(2001) 366 final (Green Paper).

Evan, W. M. & Freeman, R.E. 1988. A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation:

Kantian Capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp and N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical Theory and

Business : 97-106. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B., Gardial, S. 2002. Exploring the Phenomenon of Customers’

Desired Value Change in a Business-to-Business Context. Journal of Marketing,

66(4):102-117.

Fombrun, C.J. 2005. Building Corporate Reputation Through CSR Initiatives: Evolving

Standards. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1): 7-11.

Freeman R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. 2002. Developing Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management

Studies. 39(1): 1-21.

Gao, S.S., & Zhang, J.J. 2006. Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate

sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6): 722-740.

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the

Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (1-2): 51-71.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 1996). Understanding and Managing Organizational

Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

46

Government of Canada. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: an implementation guide for

Canadian business. Ottawa, Ont. : Government of Canada.

Gray, R., Owen, D. and Adams, C. 1996. Accounting and Accountability: Changes and

Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. London: Prentice-Hall.

Guay T., Doh J.P., & Sinclair, G. 2004. Non-governmental Organizations, Shareholder

Activism, and Socially Responsible Investments: Ethical, Strategic, and Governance

Implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1): 125-139.

Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (Eds.). 2005. Corporate Social

Responsibility Across Europe. Berlin: Springer.

Hardjono, T. & de Klein, P. 2004. Introduction on the European Corporate Sustainability

Framework (ECSF). Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2): 99-113.

Hemingway, C.A. 2005. Personal Values as A Catalyst for Corporate Social

Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3): 233–249.

Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. 2004. Managers’ Personal Values as Drivers of

Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1): 33–44.

Hemphill, T.A. 2004. Monitoring Global Corporate Citizenship: Industry Self-regulation at a

Crossroad. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14 (Summer): 81-95.

Holme, R., & Watts P. 2000. Corporate Social Responsibility: Making good business sense.

Geneva: The World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

IKEA. 2004. Social & Environmental Responsibility Report 2003. http://www.ikea.com/ms/

en_AU/about_ikea/social_environmental/se_report.pdf, p. 1-88, [accessed August 13, 2006]

IKEA .2006. IKEA Marketing Strategy.

http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_GB/about_ikea/press_room/student_info.html, [accessed June

22, 2006]

47

Jones, T. 1980. Corporate Social Responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management

Review, 22 (3): 59–67.

Jonker, J., & Foster, D. 2002. Stakeholder Excellence? Framing the Evolution and

Complexity of a Stakeholder Perspective of the Firm. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, 9(4): 187-195

Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. 2002. Exploring Corporate Strategy (6th ed.). Essex: Pearson

Education Limited.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Wiley

Khoo, H. H., & Tan, K. C. 2002. Using the Australian Business Excellence Framework to

achieve sustainable business excellence. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, 9(4): 196-205.

Klein, S.M. 1996. A Management Communication Strategy for Change. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 9(2):33-46.

Kotler, P. & N. Lee. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: doing the most good for your

company and your cause. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Kruse, C. 2005. Benchmarking ethical performance in the electronics supply chain. Corporate

Responsibility Management, 1(4): 20-23.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.

Lewis, E. 2005. Great IKEA! A Brand for All the People. London: Cyan Books.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. 2004. Corporate Citizenship: Let Not Relationship Marketing

Escape the Management Toolbox. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4): 346-363.

48

Lockett, A., Moon, J., Visser, W. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility in Management

Research: Focus, Nature, Salience and Sources of Influence. Journal of Management

Studies, 43(1):115-136.

Luo. X., & Bhattacharya, C.B. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction,

and Market Value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4): 1-18.

Lyon D. 2004. How can you help organizations change to meet the corporate responsibility

agenda? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 11(3): 133-139.

Maclagan, P. W. 1998. Management and Morality. London: Sage.

Maignan I., Ferrell O. C., & Ferrell L. 2005. A Stakeholder Model for Implementing Social

Responsibility in Marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10): 956–977.

Maignan, I. S., Ferrell, O.C., & Hult, T.M .1999. Corporate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents

and Business Benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (4) : 455– 469.

Mamic, I. 2005. Managing Global Supply Chain: The Sports Footwear, Apparel and Retail

Sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1): 81-100.

Maon, F., Swaen, V., & Lindgreen, A. 2006. Impact of CSR commitments and CSR

communication on diverse stakeholders: the case of IKEA. In Bhattacharya, C.B., Levine,

D., & Smith, N.C., Corporate responsibility and global business: implications for

corporate and marketing strategy, Conference proceedings, London: London Business

School.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by

business, Administrative Science Quarterly. 48(2): 268-289.

Matten, D., & Crane A. 2005. Corporate Citizenship : Toward an extended theorical

conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 166-179.

Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. 2003. Cognition-in-Context: Reorienting Research in

Business Market Strategy. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. 18(6/7): 595-606.

49

Mazurkiewicz, P. 2004. Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Is a Common CSR

Framework Possible? 24 annual th IAIA Conference, Conference proceedings published on

CD-Rom, Vancouver, BC

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R.,& Wood, D.J. 1997.Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification

and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’. Academy of

Management Review, 22 (4): 853-886

Mitleton-Kelly, E. 2003. Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organizations:

the application of complexity theory to organizations. London: Elsevier.

Moon, J. 2004. Government as a driver of corporate social responsibility. ICCSR Research

Paper Series ISSN 1479-5124 No. 20-2004.

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/ICCSR/pdf/ResearchPdfs/20-2004.pdf [accessed

April 7, 2007]

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. 1994. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship

Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(7): 20–38.

Morimoto, R., Ash, J. and Hope, C. 2005. Corporate social responsibility audit: from theory

to practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4): 315-325.

Norguet, D. 2005. La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise face aux mutations industrielles. In

Tixier, M. (Ed.), Communiquer sur le développement durable : 115-126. Paris : Editions

de l’Organisation.

O'Connell, C.S. 2004. Corporate responsibility is more than cause-related marketing.

Corporate Responsibility Management, 1(1): 3.

Ottaway, M. 2001. Corporatism Goes Global: International Organizations, NGO Networks

and Transnational Business. Global Governance, 7 (3): 1-22.

50

Panapanaan, V. M., Linnanen, L., Karvonen, M. M., & Phan, V. T. 2003. Roadmapping

Corporate Social Responsibility in Finnish Companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2):

133-146.

Pearce, J.A. II, & Doh, J.P. 2005. The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT

Sloan Management Review, 46(3): 30-8.

Philips. 2002. Adding value, http://www.newscenter.philips.com/about/news/

publications/mondial/section-13297/article-2203.html, [accessed April 9, 2006]

Philips. 2004. Beyond Sustainability,

http://www.newscenter.philips.com/about/news/publications/section-13294/article-

14760.html, [accessed April 10, 2006]

Philips. 2005. Sustainability Report 2004 – Dedicated to Sustainability,

http://www.philips.com/assets/Downloadablefile//Sustainability_report_2004-13939.pdf,

[accessed February 28, 2006]

Pinkston, T. S., & Carroll, A. B. 1994. Corporate Citizenship Perspectives and Foreign Direct

Investment in the U.S. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3): 157-169.

Porter, M.E., & Kramer M.R., 2006. Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive

Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 78-92.

Post, J. E., Frederick, W. C., Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. 1996. Business and Society.

Corporate Strategy, Public Policy and Ethics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

responsibility. Washington: Brookings institution Press.

Robertson, D. C. 1991. Corporate Ethics Programs: The Impact of Firm Size. In Harvey, B.,

Van Luijk, H., & Corbetta, G. (eds.), Market Morality and Company Size: 119-136.

Dordrecht, The Neteherlands: Kluwer.

Sachs, S., & Ruhli, E. 2005. Changing managers' values toward a broader stakeholder

orientation. Corporate Governance. 5 (2): 89-98.

51

Savitz, A.W., & Weber, K. 2006. The Triple Bottom Line : how today's best-run companies

are achieving economic, social, and environmental success-and how you can too. San

Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Scherer, A.G. & Palazzo, G. 2007. Toward a Political Conception of Corporate

Responsibility. Business and Society Seen From a Habermasian Perspective. Academy of

Management Review, 32(4), forthcoming.

Schouten, M.J. & Remmé, J. 2006. Making sense of corporate social responsibility in

international business: experiences from Shell. Business Ethics: A European Review,

15(4): 365-379.

Smith, N. C. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management

Review, 45(4) : 52-76.

Spiggle, S. 1994. Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research.

Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3): 491-503.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CT:

Sage.

Swaen, V., & Maignan, I. 2000. The Social Responsibility Imperative. European Business

Forum, 4: 18-22.

The Economist. 2005. The Good Company: A Skeptical Look At Corporate Social

Responsibilty. The Economist, 374(8410).

Unilever. 2001. Social Review 2000: Unilever’s Approach to Corporate Social

Responsibility. London: Unilever.

52

Unilever. 2006. 2005 Unilever Environmental and Social Report,

http://www.unilever.com/Images/Environmental_and_social_report_bkmks_tcm13-

39279.pdf, [accessed February 12, 2007]

Unilever. 2007. Sustainable Development Report 2006.

http://www.unilever.com/Images/es_Sustainable-development-report-2006_tcm13-

91377.pdf [accessed May 6, 2007]

Van Lee, R., Fabish, L., & McGaw, N. 2004. The Value of Corporate Values. Strategy +

Business, 39 (Spring):1-14.

Vogel, D. 1978. Lobbying the corporation: Citizen challenges to business authority. New

York: Basic books.

Vogel, D. 2005. The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate social

Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. 2005. The influence of CEO transformational leadership on

firm-level commitment to corporate social responsibility. In Doh, J. P., & Stumpf, S.

(Eds.), Handbook on responsible leadership and governance in global business: 195-220.

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Walsh, J.P., Weber, K. & Margolis, J.D. 2003. Social issues and management: Our lost cause

found. Journal of Management, 29(6): 859-881.

Werre, M. 2003. Implementing Corporate Responsibility – The Chiquita Case. Journal of

Business Ethics, 44(2-3): 247-260.

Whetten, D. A., Rands, G., & Godfrey, P. 2002. What are the responsibilities of business to

society? In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, and R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and

Management: 373-408. London: Sage.

Williams, S. 1999. UK Ethical Investment: a Coming of Age. Journal of Investing, 8 (2): 58-

75.

53

Wilson, D. 1992. A Strategy of Change: Concepts and Controversies in the Management of

Change. London: Routledge.

Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54

55

TABLE 1 Definitions of CSR

“Corporate social responsibility is the managerial obligation to take action, to protect and to improve both the welfare of society as a whole and the interest of organizations” (Davis & Blomstrom, 1975: 5).

“Corporate social responsibility is the notion that corporations have an obligation to constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law and union contract”. (Jones, 1980: 59)

“Corporate Social Responsibility relates primarily to achieving outcomes from organizational decisions concerning specific issues or problems which (by some normative standards) have beneficial rather than adverse effects on pertinent corporate stakeholders” (Epstein, 1987: 104)

“Social Responsibility is the obligation of both business and society (stakeholders) to take proper legal, moral-ethical and philanthropic actions that will protect and improve the welfare of both society and business as a whole; all of this must of course be accomplished within the economic structures and capabilities of the parties involved” (Anderson 1989: 9)

“Corporate social responsibility may be viewed as a process in which managers take responsibility for identifying and accommodating the interests of those affected by the organization’s actions.” (Maclagan, 1998: 147)

“Corporate citizenship is the extent to which businesses meet the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities placed on them by their various stakeholders” (Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult 1999: 457)

“Corporate social responsibility is a commitment to improve community well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources” (Kotler & Lee, 2005: 3)

“CSR is the business’ commitment to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community, and society at large to improve their quality of life” (Holmes & Watts, 2000: 10).

“Corporate social responsibility is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (European Commission, 2001: 6)

“Corporate Social Responsibility is the way in which a company manages and improves its social and environmental impact to generate value for both its shareholders and its stakeholders by innovating its strategy, organisation and operations”. (CSR Europe, 2003)

TABLE 2 Existing frameworks about CSR implementation

CSR Conception CSR integration process Stakeholders’ role in the process

Khoo & Tan (2002)

Business commitment to CSR should “envelop all employees (i.e. their health and well-being), the quality of products, the continuous improvement of processes, and the company’s facilities and profit-making opportunities” (p. 196). Sustainable manufacturing and development is further defined as “the integration of processes, decision making and the environmental concerns of an active industrial system that seeks to achieve economic growth, without destroying precious resources or the environment” (p. 197)

Based on the Australian Business Excellence Framework, the authors consider 4 cyclic stages involved in transforming the company from its initial state to a socially responsible and sustainable organization in a continuous perspective: 1. Preparation (involving leadership and strategy

planning) 2. Transformation (involving people and information

management 3. Implementation (involving the embedment of

sustainability in the company processes) 4. Sustainable business results (involving the review

of the system’s performance)

Stakeholders’ concerns and roles are not integrated in the framework. The framework only refers to the necessity of addressing the well-being of employees as well as customers needs and expectations.

Werre (2003)

Corporate (social) responsibility is used in a general sense, referring to “the strategic choice to take responsibility for the impact of business with respect to economic, environmental and social dimensions” (p. 260).

4 main phases in a Corporate Responsibility (CR) implementation model: 1. Raising top-management awareness 2. Formulating a CR vision and core corporate values 3. Changing organizational behaviour 4. Anchoring the change

Importance of internal communication and employee’s involvement is underlined. But external stakeholders’ involvement is not mentioned except in their role for raising top management sensitivity as well as in external certification process.

(to be continued next page)

56

Panapanaan et al.

(2003)

CSR “encompasses three dimensions – economic, environmental and social” (Panapaanan et al., 2003: 134). CSR is about “doing business sustainably and ethically as well as treating or addressing stakeholders’ concerns responsibly” (p. 135).

2 preliminary steps conditioning the commitment to CSR management precede 5 essential activities for CSR management: a. Assessment of CSR (identification of the main CSR

areas and identifications of the relevant CSR parameters)

b. Decision whether to proceed in managing CSR 1. Organization and structure 2. Planning 3. Implementation 4. Monitoring and evaluation 5. Communication and reporting

The authors mainly insists on step a. and emphasizes the critical role the social risk assessment through considering 4 main stakeholders’ clusters (employees, community, customers, community, suppliers) and their issues. The 5 “essential activities” are only evoked. The framework doesn’t consider any stakeholders’ role in that perspective.

Maignan, et al. (2005)

Businesses commitment to CSR is viewed as, “at a minimum, adopt values and norms along with organizational processes to minimize their negative impacts and maximize their positive impacts on important stakeholder issues” (p. 958) - CSR of an organization is issue-specific. - Commitment to CSR is best evaluated at the level of an individual business unit.

8 steps to be adopted to properly implement CSR from a marketing perspective: 1. Discovering organizational values and norms. 2. Identifying stakeholders and their respective salience. 3. Identifying the main issues of concern to the

identified key stakeholders. 4. Assessing a meaning of CSR that fits the organization

of interest. 5. Auditing current practices. 6. Prioritizing and Implementing CSR changes and

initiatives. 7. Promoting CSR by creating awareness and getting

stakeholders involved. 8. Gaining stakeholders feedback.

The framework highlights the importance of 2 feedback loops in order to gain stakeholders’ feedback:

Stakeholders’ feedback to be used as input for the next audit. Consequently, the sequence linking steps 5 to 8 should be performed on a regular basis (bi-annual audits of current practices bi-annually).

Stakeholders’ feedback as an input to reassess the first three steps of the CSR management process in the long-run (approximately every four years).

(to be continued next page)

57

58

Cramer (2005)

Cramer uses the WBCSD definition of CSR. CSR is then viewed as “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life” (p. 583)

6 main non-sequential activities for CSR implementation: 1. Listing the expectations and demands of the

stakeholders 2. Formulating a vision and a mission with regard to

corporate social responsibility and, if desired, a code of conduct

3. Developing short- and longer-term strategies with regard to corporate social responsibility and, using these, to draft a plan of action

4. Setting up a monitoring and reporting system 5. Embedding the process by rooting it in quality and

management systems 6. Communicating internally and externally about the

approach and the results obtained.

The emphasis is laid on the importance of dialoguing with stakeholders but the model remains unclear on their role and engagement in the process of organizational CSR development.

59

TABLE 3 CSR Drivers

Economic drivers Social drivers

o Development of perceived competitive advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2006)

o Socially responsible investment and pressure from shareholders (Guay, Doh, & Sinclair, 2004; Williams, 1999)

o Building and maintaining company image and reputation (Fombrun, 2005)

o Pressure along the supply chain and improved risk management (Mamic, 2005)

o Recognition of the evolution of consumption trends (Crane & Matten, 2003)

o Pressure from NGOs and communities (Guay et al., 2004; Ottaway, 2001)

o Pressures from trade unions and international labor organizations (Hemphill, 2004)

Political drivers Individual drivers

o Evolution of the legal and regulatory frameworks (de la Cuesta González, & Valor Martinez, 2004).

o Political promotion and pressure at local, regional or national level (Albareda, Tencati, Lozano & Perrini; Moon, 2004)

o Top management’s ethical orientation (Agle et al., 1999; Waldman & Siegel, 2005)

o Employees and managers’ personal values (Hemingway, 2005; Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004)

60

TABLE 4 Stakeholder Dialogue at Philips (Adapted from Philips, 2005, 21)

Dedicated interface Stakeholders Means of interaction Divisions Countries/Regions Corporate Buyers

B2B Advisory boards, co-R&D, co-strategy development

Customers B2C Surveys (trend related, customer satisfaction related, application research), complaint resolution, focus groups

X X

Suppliers

Suppliers/business partners Supplier days (local, global), co-R&D, industry membership X

Financial service providers Ongoing ad hoc involvement, financial ratings X Internal

Employees Employee Engagement surveys, town hall meetings, People Performance mgmt system, compliance management system, (local) ombudsman

X X X

Social investors Surveys X

Prim

ary

stak

ehol

ders

Mainstream investors Road shows, analyst (face to face) meetings, ratings X Lateral Academia Co-R&D, exchange programs, local networking X X Non-governmental organizations Surveys, project development, ad hoc involvement X X

Communities Social investment activities focused on education and health, local networking X

Regulatory bodies Local networking (business/community driven), participation in advisory bodies, cooperation in community projects

X X

Media Local networking, surveys X X X Seco

ndar

y st

akeh

olde

rs

Competitors / other corporations

Industry membership, network for best practices (e.g. WBCSD, Global Compact) X X X

61

TABLE 5 Critical success factors for implementing integrated CSR policies

PLAN DO CHECK/IMPROVE MAINSTREAM

o Connecting CSR vision and initiatives with organization’s core values and competencies

o Formalizing CSR vision through official documents

o Considering mistakes as an opportunity to learn and improve programs and policies

CORPORATE LEVEL

o Getting key people commitment (directors, owners, senior managers) o Engaging key stakeholders in the whole process

o Building upon existing organizational structures and process

o Ensuring that the company dispose of internal skills to make the transformation

o Training of

employees about CSR

o Considering mistakes as an opportunity to learn and improve programs and policies

o Emphasizing relationships between new organizational behaviour and success

ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

o Fostering the presence of moral/CSR champions o Thinking in terms of engagement rather than quick fix solutions

o Creating enthusiasm and credibility around CSR (by providing regular updates on progress)

o Rewarding people that create CSR successes

MANAGERIAL LEVEL

o Leadership role

FIGURE 1 Proposed integrative framework

Uncovering organizational systems, as

well as corporate norms and

values

Identifying key

stakeholders and critical stakeholder

issues

Auditing current CSR

norms, standards,

and practices

Benchmarking competitors’ practices and CSR norms, standards,

and practices

SENSITIZE

5. Developing a CSR

integrated strategic plan

–

Embedding CSR in

organizational strategy

DO

MOVE

Economic drivers

1. Raising CSR awareness inside the organization

CHECK / IMPROVE

8. Evaluating CSR integrated strategies and communication

–

Evaluating, verifying and reporting on

CSR progress

7. Communicating about CSR commitments and performance

Political drivers

Managers’ personal values

Social drivers

Continuous stakeholder dialogue

UNFREEZE REFREEZE

MAINSTREAM

6. Implementing CSR integrated strategic plan

–

Implementing organizational initiatives and

strategies linking with CSR

9. Institutionalizing

CSR

–

Anchoring changes into

organizational systems, as well

as corporate culture and

values

PLAN

3. Establishing a vision and a

working definition for

CSR

4. Assessing current CSR status

2. Assessing corporate purpose

in a societal context

62