Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Exploring the Synergies of CSR and Brand Strategy
Joan Carlini and Debra Grace
Drawing on the CSR and brand literature, this exploratory study seeks to
investigate the parallels of CSR and brand management technique. For example,
both CSR and brand management are based on organisational values (Smith,
2003, Urde, 2003) and provide analogous benefits such as; establishing emotional
bonds with stakeholders, generating trust, creating differentiation and boosting
employee moral (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002, Lamberti and Lettieri, 2009, Pomering
and Dolnicar, 2009). Progressing on from previous studies, this paper explores
the synergic effect, and associated dynamics, created though the integration of
CSR and corporate brand resulting in a process model.
Field: Marketing, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Brand
1.0 Introduction
In recent times, the world has seen dramatic events that exemplify the need for systematic
changes to the way business operate (Waddock and McIntosh, 2011). Changes to consumer
thinking, as well as environmental disasters have generated a need for companies to do
„social good‟ (Allouche, 2006, Elkington, 2006, Gjolberg, 2009, Wildes, 2008, Wood, 2010).
This social evolution coupled with diminishing operational boundaries, means that
organisations are choosing corporate social responsibility (CSR) to create differentiation and,
as such, CSR and corporate brand have come to the forefront of managerial foci (Manaktola
and Januhari, 2007).
CSR tactics motivated by profit maximisation are becoming less common (Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001) as organisations discover the benefits of strategic CSR, such as,
positively influencing and effecting brand strength (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002) and creating
greater profitability through premiums charged for socially responsible features (Arana and
Leon, 2009, Auger et al., 2003). Consequently, CSR has the ability to assist in the
development of strong brands that produces a sustainable competitive advantage (Aaker,
1991, Kotler et al., 1996).
Yet, while some studies have identified benefits of pro-social marketing campaigns such as,
generating trust (Lamberti & Lettieri, 2009), enhancing an organisation‟s image or developing
relationships with stakeholders (Mattila and Hanks, 2012, Hoeffler and Keller, 2002), none
have investigated the relational link between CSR and brand building from multiple
perspectives. With the exponential increase in spending on CSR (Mattila and Hanks, 2012), it
is imperative to develop our understanding of the mechanisms and strategies to integrate
CSR and brand to create win-win situations.
2.0 Literature Review
The modern era of social responsibility began in the 1950‟s with the seminal work of Howard
Bowen in 1953 (Carroll, 1999). Since this time, there has been a proliferation of research that
has resulted in multiple definitions and numerous theoretical frameworks creating dispute as
to how CSR should be defined and what dimensions it comprises (Dahlsrud, 2008). Primarily,
1
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
the conflict arises from; differences in national and cultural approaches to business,
inconsistency in motivation for CSR activity and differences in disciplines and perspectives of
scholars (accsr, 2011). Despite the lack of agreement, CSR is generally perceived as “a
commitment to improve (societal) well-being through discretionary business practices and
contributions of corporate resources” (Du et al., 2010, p.8).
The recent growth of CSR research has created a „kaleidoscopic‟ notion of closely related
concepts, such as, corporate social responsiveness, corporate social performance, business
ethics, stakeholder model, triple bottom line, corporate citizen, strategic focus and creating
shared value. This continual shift of focus has meant an agreed definition is elusive. Not
because this is no definition, but rather because there are too many (Dahlsrud, 2008).
However, some believe that this variegation in literature has added to the depth and scope of
CSR (De Bakker et al., 2005).
While CSR conceptualisations differ considerably, a number of authors (Carroll, 1999,
Dahlsrud, 2008, Holcomb et al., 2007, Jones et al., 2006) agree that there are distinguishable
elements. In particular, Dahlsrud (2008) believes that the confusion caused by the competing
definitions has caused unproductive engagements and thus set about a content analysis. He
concluded that five dimension were clearly evident, 1) environmental, 2) social, 3) economic,
4) stakeholder and 5) voluntariness. The environmental dimension is caring about the natural
environment in business operations. The social dimension relates to building positive
relationships between business and society. The economic dimension is concerned with
sustainability of business profits. The stakeholder dimension is the affirmative interaction with
all interests in the business such as healthy relations with employees, suppliers, customers
and all other stakeholders, while voluntariness refers to business acting beyond legal
requirements.
The stakeholder approach introduced by Freeman (1984) has a become common thread in
the literature and is central to the concept of CSR (Blomback and Axelsson, 2007, Carroll and
Shabana, 2010, Lindgreen and Swaen, 2010, Maon et al., 2009). Stakeholders are groups
and individuals who can affect, or are affected by the achievement of an organisation‟s
mission (Freeman and McVea, 2001, Noland and Phillips, 2010). However, CSR is more than
just engaging stakeholders, it is a positive attitude that a firm adopts towards stakeholders
including workers, consumers, community, environment and future generations, implying the
way in which organisations engage stakeholders is becoming increasingly important
(Bohdananowicz and Zientara, 2008) and failure to do so can have detrimental effects (Maon
et al., 2009).
A key stakeholder group often overlooked is the employee perspective. The employee is an
important primary stakeholder as they are highly salient, with significant influence over the
organisation‟s operation. This is due to their peculiar multifaceted role, of actually constituting
the organisation, are often consumers, and live in the community where the organisation
operates (Greenwood, 2007). Nevertheless, most CSR studies are predominantly focused on
external stakeholders at a macro level rather than internal stakeholders at a micro employee
level (Rupp et al., 2006, Aguilera et al., 2007). Therefore, to address this imbalance and
facilitate an integrated approach to CSR, inclusion of the employee viewpoint is essential.
Employees are the human resources of an organisation. An organisation‟s goal is to manage
and influence employee behaviour towards achieving specific objectives (Jabbour, 2011).
2
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Human resource management is integral to CSR because, in most cases, employees carry
the burden for implementing sustainable behaviours into their roles, and as such successful
CSR outcomes are determined by an employee‟s willingness to collaborate (Collier and
Esteban, 2007). For instance, while top management supports CSR (for example, we work
towards a zero carbon footprint), in terms of implementation, employees must engage in
initiatives such as recycling and power saving to ensure effectiveness (Bhattacharya et al.,
2007). Therefore, socially responsible philosophy must be founded on an „employee centred
approach‟ involving an alignment of socially responsible values (Nord and Fuller, 2009).
Synchronising CSR and Corporate Brand
Corporate brand building has risen in popularity in recent times as organisations recognise
the importance that their employees play in the personification of their brand (de Chernatony,
2002). A corporate brand is more complex than a product brand, and defined as a set of
meanings by which an organisation is known and through which people describe and relate to
it (Dowling, 1986, p. 110). An important aspect of the corporate brand is the associated
personality, this is the human characteristics attributed to a brand (Keller and Richey, 2006).
For example, Ben and Jerry‟s is an ice-creamery, with their values entrenched in a mission to
make the world a better place (Ben and Jerry's, 2014). While most consumers would not be
aware of their full socially responsible practices (such as, no gmo, fair trade ingredients, no
cruelty farming techniques and certification), most make the association between Ben and
Jerry‟s and their social conscience.
Meaningful corporate brands are difficult to achieve, as they rely on alignment between brand
and employee values (Hatch and Schultz, 2001). Constructing a CSR brand is even more
challenging due to addition of the socially responsible personality dimension. A CSR
corporate brand requires a focus of „within‟ the organisation, necessitating a new approach to
brand management, focusing on employees as brand ambassadors that interact between
internal and external stakeholders.
While it has been noted that the corporate brand dovetails nicely with both the objectives and
motivations of CSR, how to achieve coaction remains elusive (Powell et al., 2013). The aim
of this paper is to look at CSR and corporate brand from a combined lens, as the similarities
between the two provide the basis for a synergic effect. Despite it being acknowledged that
CSR can improve brand strength and authenticity, many organisations are not adept in
managing the combination (Powell, 2011). As a result, the money spent of CSR initiatives has
limited benefits and leaves stakeholders concerned about the expenditure (Gray and Milne,
2002).
3.0 Research Questions
CSR embeddedness requires the development and implementation of CSR strategy based on
an organisation‟s specific core capabilities, mission, vision, social performance and industry
characteristics (Smith, 2003). An organisation‟s brand is not limited to a mark or name, but
rather multiple touch points, meaning that the CSR strategy affects how stakeholders perceive
the brand, ultimately determining its success (Urde, 1994). Therefore, the organisation‟s
vision, culture and image must be aligned for brand benefits to accrue (Hatch and Schultz,
2001), in this case, one of social responsibility.
3
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
To further current knowledge of the dynamic nature of CSR and brand, the research objective
is to: Explore the synergic effect, and associate dynamics, created through the integration of
CSR and corporate brand from internal and external perspectives. The preceding literature
has identified four key areas that guide this investigation, that is, awareness, attitudes,
behaviour and CSR brand integration. At the rudimentary level, awareness of both brand and
CSR is imperative before synergistic gains can be realised (Auger et al., 2003, Keller, 1993).
Subsequent to awareness, is the formulation of attitudes (Noland and Phillips, 2010) and the
valance and strength of these attitudes play a key role in the effectiveness of CSR brand
initiatives, since attitudes fundamentally drive behaviour (de Chernatony and Segal-Horn,
2003, Ajzen and Fishbein, 2000) and the ultimate goal of any strategy is behavioural change
and consistency. On this basis, the following research questions are posed.
Research Question 1: Employee Perceptions
RQ1a: To what extent do employees exhibit awareness, attitudes, behaviours and
perception of integration towards the organisation’s CSR strategy?
RQ1b: To what extent do employees exhibit awareness, attitudes, behaviours and
perception of integration towards the organisation’s brand?
Research Question 2: Stakeholder Perceptions
RQ2a: To what extent do stakeholders exhibit awareness, attitudes, behaviours
and perception of integration towards the organisation’s CSR strategy?
RQ2b: To what extent do stakeholders exhibit awareness, attitudes, behaviours
and perception of integration towards the organisation’s brand?
The articulation of the two research questions provides the necessary guidance to further
understand the components of the CSR brand. With the direction afforded by the
identification of the research questions, further contribution to the existing body of knowledge
is enriched.
4.0 Research Methodology
As the scope of this study is concerned with exploring and describing a contemporary real
world phenomena concerned with pre-paradigmatic issues, such as inter-organisational
relationships and culture (Perry, 1998), the method chosen was that of the interpretive social
science. The exploratory nature of this study requires a fluid and flexible approach that
emphasises unanticipated and not-so-obvious findings (Bryman, 1984, Walsh, 2003), which is
comparable to that employed in the CSR and brand management literature (e.g. de
Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1998b, Bhattacharya et al., 2007). This paper seeks to
understand the importance of CSR and brand integration, specifically from the perspective of
internal and external stakeholders. No previous papers have explicitly explored the synergic
effect and associated dynamics created through the integration of CSR and corporate brand.
Case Selection
A single case study was the chosen data collection mechanism due to its suitability to cover
contextual condition, such as organisational practices believed to be pertinent to the
phenomenon (Sobh and Chad, 2006). The research objective for this study is largely based
4
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
on organisational capacity and, in particular, the embeddedness of CSR and its influence on
brand. In particular, it is the exhibited awareness, attitudes and behaviours of internal and
external stakeholders that were sought in order to explore the synergic effect and associated
dynamics created through the integration of CSR and brand, thus the case chosen was a
convention centre in Queensland, Australia. It was selected due to its strength and capability
in both CSR and brand. The organisation actively promotes its notable CSR initiatives and
industry awards through its corporate communications.
Participants and Data Collection
Individual interviews were used to collect the data which ranged from 30 to 70 minutes. In
total, eleven employees and eleven external stakeholders were interviewed. As
recommended by Mohrman et al., (2001, p. 357) that “the usefulness of research depends in
part on the extent to which the perspectives of organization members are included in the
research process”, as such, the internal participants were selected using a non-probability
sampling technique to confirm that there were a variety of position, tenure, motivation and
abilities to ensure a range of perspectives were covered (Smith and Fletcher, 2004). External
participants were sourced from a variety of industries and relationships with the organisation
under investigation, they represented suppliers, clients, industry partners, guests and
exhibitors. For a profile of participants, refer to Table: 1. The sample is in line with Patton
(2005) and Vallaster and de Chernatony (2005), both contending that insights from interviews
are sufficient for developing propositions on the empirical relationships between CSR and
brand.
Table 1: Profile of Participants
Employee Profile
Participant Position
1a
Senior Manager
1b
Administrator
1c
Middle Manager
1d
Frontline
1e
Frontline
1f
Line Manager
1g
Middle Manager
1h
Administrator
1i
Middle Manager
1j
Office Manager
1k
Junior Manager
Stakeholder Profile
Participant Relationship
2a
Supplier/ client
2b
Client/industry partner
2c
Industry partner
2d
Client/Industry partner
2e
Client
2f
Conference Guest
2g
Contractor Male 38
2h
Exhibitor client/supplier
2i
Supplier Male 37
2j
Supplier Male 55
2k
Client/exhibitor
Gender
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Gender
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Age
57
36
43
40
26
55
48
40
40
62
38
Tenure
16
11
10
5
1
12
15
8
12
2
3
Age
55
51
55
41
50
52
38
50
37
55
42
5
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Semi-structured interviews were deemed the most effective method of data collection. The
development of the interview protocol was theory driven, with probing questions centred on
each research questions to ensure consistency, as shown in Table 2. Each interview was
recorded and subsequently transcribed with each respond asked to check statements to
enhance validity.
Table 2: Topics from Interview Protocol
Research Question
RQ1a
General introduction
Is CSR actively promoted to employees?
If so, by what means?
Is it important for employees to know about CSR and what this organisation does?
Does this organisation‟s CSR policy affect the way you do your job?
Is there anything else you can think of to do with this organisation‟s CSR?
RQ1b
Explain what a brand is?
What is this organisation‟s brand?
Is the brand actively promoted to employees?
If so, by what means
Is it important for employees to know about the organisation‟s brand?
Has the organisations brand affected the way in which you do your job?
Are there systems in place to ensure staff behave in a way that matches the brand?
Is there anything else you can think of to do with this organisation‟s brand?
RQ2a
General introduction
Is CSR actively promoted to you (stakeholders)?
If so, by what means?
Do you think it is important for stakeholders to know about CSR and what the (case
organisation) does?
Has CSR affected the work relationship with the (case organisation)?
Are there are systems in place to ensure environmentally responsible behaviour from
employees and stakeholders?
Is important for stakeholders to be aware of the (case organisation) CSR strategy?
Are you aware what the (case organisation) CSR policy is?
Has the (case organisation) CSR policy has affected your business?
Is there anything else you can think of to do with the (case organisation) CSR?
RQ1b
Explain to me what a brand is?
What is the (case organisation) brand?
Is the brand actively promoted to stakeholders?
If so, by what means
Is it important for stakeholders to know about the (case organisation) brand?
Has the (case organisation‟s) brand affected the work relationship with the (case
organisation)?
Are there systems in place to ensure employees treat stakeholders in a way that matches
the brand?
Is there anything else you can think of to do with the (case organisation) brand?
Category
Awareness
Integration
Attitude
Behaviour
Awareness
Awareness
Integration
Attitude
Behaviour
Integration
Awareness
Integration
Attitude
Behaviour
Integration
Attitude
Awareness
Behaviour
Awareness
Awareness
Integration
Attitude
Behaviour
Integration
Analysis
Analysis using Pope, Ziebland and Mays‟ (2000) five stages of data analysis were used. The
stages included familiarisation, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, mapping
and interpretation. Once the researcher had become familiar with the raw data by listening to
the transcripts and checking for accuracy, a thematic framework with definitions (shown in
Table 3) was developed to index the data. Afterward, a systematic technique of analysing
each transcript according to the thematic framework was applied using NVivo. Lastly, a chart
6
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
was developed to group themes and explanations, forming the basis of the CSR Brand
Synergy Model discussed later.
Table 3: Definition to Thematic Framework
Category
Awareness
Attitudes
Behaviour
Integration
Definition
“is subjective and equates awareness with self‐reports indicating that an observer consciously
sees a stimulus” (Henley, 1984, p 121)
“a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree
of favor or disfavor” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, p. 1)
“any observable overt movement of the organism generally taken to include verbal behaviour as
well as physical movements” (Bergner, 2011, p. 147)
Collaboration and interaction which may include meetings and other information flows and
working collectively toward common goals (kahn, 1996)
5.0 Results and Themes
The internal and external stakeholder perceptions are examined and reported separately in
the subsequent section. The structure follows the research questions, that is, the key themes
that emerged from under the umbrella of awareness, attitudes, behaviours and integration.
CSR/Brand Synergy: Employee Perspective
Internal Communication
From an employee perspective, the results indicate that internal communication is paramount
for successful CSR brand synergy. Authors in both CSR and brand agree (Blomback and
Axelsson, 2007, Carroll and Shabana, 2010, de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1999) that
employee knowledge is vital. As reflected in the literature, we found that employees felt it was
crucial to understand the organisation‟s philosophy (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001).
Communication tools such as emails, training, newsletters and signage provides employees
with a comprehension that guides their actions and assists with achieving organisational
behavioural standards. Supported by Harris and de Chernatony (2001), employee‟s
organisational knowledge motivates and assists them with understanding how their roles
relate to the organisations goals and philosophy. This study reinforced that relevant
information be provided for employees, that is, information which assists employees with
carrying out their duties. For example, one employee stated “I think they need to know where
they fit in … The important part that staff need to know is, it’s my role to turn these lights off
when I am finished in this room.”
In relation to both CSR and brand, employees want to understand how their actions infiltrate
the entire organisation and the outcome of their contribution, as illustrated in the comment
from a frontline employee. “Yes, we want to know about the strategy, obviously it is a way of
knowing what is being done and why things happen. … Obviously [we] know the recycle bins
are there, but it is nice for people to understand why they do it.” Ensuring that employees
receive pertinent information espouses a „big picture‟ philosophy resulting in employees being
knowledgeable about their roles, responsibilities and contribution to organisational CSR and
brand goals (Collier and Esteban, 2007).
7
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Employee Buy-in
As previously identified by Jenkins (2006) and later by Davies and Crane (2010), employee
buy-in is a key factor to ensuring organisational CSR commitment. Employee buy-in ensures
that CSR becomes embedded in the organisation and acts as a motivational state for
employee‟s that is derived from the internalisation of core values. The internalisation is based
on employees having a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities, and how to
execute them in line with the organisations CSR brand. The two emerging themes from the
study for employee buy-in included value internalisation and role clarity.
Value internalisation occurs when the employee and organisation‟s values are congruent (de
Chernatony, 2002). When an employee already has similar moral philosophy as the
organisation, a good „fit‟ of values is likely (Ind and Bjerke, 2007). Specifically in this study we
found that when employees learn and understand the importance of CSR through internal
communication, they then begin to apply these practices (e.g. recycling, waste management)
on a personal level. Equipped with new knowledge, employees apply social responsibility to
their personal lives and a deep level of internalisation results. In the long term this benefits
the organisation as employees are likely to make socially responsible decisions in the
workplace (e.g. looking for ways to work efficiently) (Cheney and Tompkins, 1987).
Role clarity provided employees with a clear vision of the duties and responsibilities required
of them to ensure employee buy-in to the CSR brand. Role clarity also assisted employees
with behavioural standards, ensuring they know how to do their job. The importance on buy-in
is evidenced with the following statement from a frontline employee. “Because you need to
know what you are signing up for. You need to know what you are going to be doing and how
you have to portray yourself.”
Employee Attitude
Comments from interviewees indicated that internal communication and buy-in were important
aspects for their attitude toward their organisation‟s CSR brand. Having a clear idea of the
role they play in delivering the CSR brand resulted in employees developing a positive
attitudinal stance typified through employee satisfaction, increased motivation and goal
orientation. Interviewees believed that the value alignment between themselves and the
organisation created personal satisfaction, which provided additional motivation to work with
colleagues to achieve common goals. This is evidenced by the following comment by a
customer service employee. “[Knowing about the CSR program] gives you a sense of pride. I
think a lot of people would feel very happy, even if they don’t participate for whatever reason,
but to know that their company does.”
A view commonly held by the employee‟s participants was the acknowledgement of the
importance of their organisation doing “good” within the community. We found that the
employee‟s working toward common CSR goals created an internal momentum that drives
the CSR brand, further motivating employees and strengthening the CSR culture (Dall‟Olmo
Riley and de Chernatony, 2000, Pomering and Johnson, 2009). This is reflected by the
following comment, “[The employees here] they’re my mates in the work environment. And
when they come and do it as well [volunteer for socially responsible initiatives in the
community], you know, you sort of give a bit more at work.”
.
8
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Behavioural consistency
While the internalisation of an organisation‟s mission and vision provides the basis to
appropriate employee behaviour (Urde, 1999, Wong and Merrilees, 2007), this study also
found factors including flexible process, sustainable behaviours and control mechanisms vital
for a CSR brand.
The results indicate that process flexibility and sustainable behaviours are compatible and
concur. For employees to act sustainably they must have the flexibility to modify their work
processes. For example, when a change in technology affected the accounts reporting
process, the administration officer was able to make the decision to reduce printing; “I’ve
taken all these reports that aren’t necessary out and do not print them. …Instead of just being
a robot and processing everything”. Furthermore, internalised core CSR brand values allow
employees to achieve behavioural consistency and adjust their work practices fittingly as
illustrated by a maintenance employee: “we use a lot of power… so with that in mind, we try to
be more efficient and have more efficient practices”.
The requirement for control mechanisms to ensure consistency was noted by participants.
The need for adherence is not surprising given that the organisation has about 1000
employees. Policies, CSR task force, CSR key performance indicators, audits (such as ISO
International Organization for Standardization), centralising services (such as lighting and airconditioning) and measurement and documentation of energy usage and waste were
specifically cited by participants. This being the case, the results here support that both
flexibility and control are necessary to support sustainable behaviours.
CSR/Brand Synergy: External Perspective
The following section is a synthesis of results from the external stakeholders, that is,
interviewees external to the organisation. The three broad emergent themes outlined below
include external communication, perceived corporate image and perceived relational
exchange quality.
External Communication
Open communication and engagement of stakeholders is essential for brand building (de
Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1999, Reid et al., 2005). It ensures a consistent
organisational message that builds strong relationships (Maon et al., 2009, Keller, 1993).
This study found that the importance of external communication was twofold, comprising
organisational and employee driven messages.
While organisational driven communications were essential for improved awareness, the
importance of employee driven communication to highlight the social and ethical features of
the organisation that were relevant to each stakeholder was emphasized. A view commonly
held in the literature is that most stakeholders are ignorant of an organisation‟s social and
ethical features (Auger et al., 2003, Du et al., 2010), therefore, employees can play a vital role
in ensuring stakeholders are cognizant. For example, an external contractor emphasises the
importance of being informed of the organisation‟s sustainable brand with the comment: “I
have spoken to who is in charge of housekeeping [here]. …over the years he has explained to
me what they are trying to achieve [in corporate social responsibility].”
9
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Perceived Corporate Image
How an organisation is viewed by its diverse stakeholder groups is referred to as corporate
image (Balmer, 2008). Given that external stakeholders gain information to appraise the
organisation‟s corporate image from formal and informal communication, indeed the
employee plays an important role in its creation. As employees explicitly enact brand
behaviour, stakeholders use this cue to evaluate the authenticity of formal communications. In
other words, a subconscious comparison is made between what they are “told” and what they
“see” the organisation doing (Hatch and Schultz, 2001), for example a client reported: “I think
the brand is very traditional … and they’re saying they’re more flexible, I just sort of wondering
whether they are incongruence.” Such a mismatch can affect the organisations credibility, for
in terms of a CSR brand, organisations must be seen as “walking the walk”, as illustrated by a
supplier in the statement: “[The case organisation have] CSR as a philosophy, it is a genuine
philosophy it is not a gimmick and the people there show a genuine concern” .
Perceived Relational Exchange Quality
The idea of relational exchange examines the relationships between parties and is based on
concepts such as dependence, trust, opportunism, commitment and satisfaction (Fruchter and
Sigué, 2005). The role of the external stakeholder is crucial to the CSR brand and the
literature advocates many benefits for relational exchange such as developing trust,
commitment, satisfaction and competitive advantage (Lamberti and Lettieri, 2009, Rokkan
and Haugland, 2002). Essentially, while communications can assist in the creation of a strong
corporate image, it is of little use if the ongoing relational exchanges with employees do not
produce quality outcomes which is emphasised by a statement by a client: “The reason we
hold our events here is because it is a quality venue, with quality staff and great food, and the
management and service is excellent.”
CSR Brand Model
In summary, the synergy of an organisation‟s CSR and brand were investigated, with a
conceptual model developed (shown in Figure 1) representing two key perspectives; the
internal and external stakeholders. The creation of CSR brand synergy begins internally, with
strong communications that are relevant, comprehensive, but also behaviourally and goal
orientated. The internal communications leads to employee comprehension permitting buy-in
though the internalisation of CSR brand values, and in turn, affecting the employee‟s attitude
resulting in CSR brand behavioural consistency.
From an external stakeholder perspective, communications forms the basis of the
stakeholder/organisation relationship. Stakeholders use the brand cues to conceive a
corporate image. However, on its own the corporate image in not enough to sustain the CSR
brand synergy, and quality relational exchanges are essential.
The CSR Brand Synergy Model attempts to conceptually map out a network of relationships
involving both internal and external stakeholder perceptions. One of the key features of the
CSR Brand Synergy Model is that two intangible resources, that is, human capital and CSR,
that are of great strategic importance are mapped, improving our understanding of their
interrelatedness (Surroca et al., 2010)
10
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Figure 1: CSR Brand Synergy Model
6.0 Conclusion and Future Research
The purpose of this study was exploratory in nature and contributed to the evolving concept of
CSR. However, given the limitation of non-generalisability of the findings it is imperative that
future research progress towards a more generalizable approach so that the findings of the
study can be further examined and substantiated. The CSR Brand Synergy Model provides a
foundation for further empirical research that can be empirically tested across larger samples
accommodating hypotheses testing of relationships.
Furthermore, contextual differences should be investigated, such as; does the model operate
differently across different business-types, industry sectors or countries? Also, do other
demographic or firmographic variables such as age, tenure, job status, education, country of
origin, organisation size and industry have an effect? The findings of this study can
propagate further empirical research, especially in clarifying the relationship of two key
organisational assets, that is, CSR and brand.
Managerial Contribution
Organisations use branding to differentiate themselves from their competitors, however the
brand provides information for more than just consumers, in fact, it provides knowledge for all
stakeholders, including employees (de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1998a). Given the
findings of this study, that both internal and external stakeholders play significant roles in CSR
brand synergy, the following recommendations are proposed.
Communications
CSR brand awareness is generally low amongst stakeholders, therefore a comprehensive
communications strategy creating dialog is vital (Devin and Lane, 2014). Internal
communication aligns the employee values with the organisational CSR brand and assists
11
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
employees in brand delivery. As it can be seen, internal communication should take corporate
communication priority and provide material that is explicit, informative and persuasive.
Organisation‟s must move away from the traditional mindset that external communications is
first and foremost in promoting the brand primarily because the CSR brand is highly
characterised by behavioural aspects, whereby the employee is key driver.
Direction
A behavioural focus from management is required to keep employees motivated and goal
orientated. Explicit behavioural standards must be set to direct employees on how to achieve
CSR brand outcomes. Direction is a strategic imperative which is inclusive of control
mechanisms that are not to be used as punitive measures, but instead as evaluation tools that
evolve over time to ensure that „best practice‟ consistently emerges and supports the CSR
brand.
Alignment
Given that CSR brands are fundamentally representations of organisational values, the
alignment of values between the organisation and its key stakeholders is paramount. In the
same way that an employee internalises organisational values, key external stakeholders
must also operate from a similar value perspective. Such alignment assists in developing
strong relationships where enhancement occurs naturally through goal congruency
eliminating the likelihood of brand misrepresentation and corrosion through association.
Accordingly, just as organisations spend considerable time and resources selecting talented
employees, they must also select their external stakeholders (e.g. suppliers, contractors) with
the same diligence.
References
Aaker, D. 1991. Managing Brand Equity, New York, The Free Press.
Accsr. 2011. Available: http://www.accsr.com.au/html/definecsr.html [Accessed 26 April 2011].
Aguilera, R., Rupp, D., Williams, C. & Ganapathi, J. 2007. Putting the S back in Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organisations. Academy of
Management Review, 32, 836-863.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. 2000. Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic
processes. European review of social psychology, 11, 1-33.
Allouche, J. (ed.) 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Arana, J. & Leon, C. 2009. The Role of Environmental Management in Consumers Preferences for
Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Environmental and Resource Economists, 44, 495506.
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. & Louviere, J. 2003. What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product
Features. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 281-304.
Balmer, J. 2008. Identity based views of the corporation: Insights from corporate identity,
organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity and corporate
image. European Journal of Marketing, 42, 879-906.
Ben and Jerry's. 2014. Values [Online]. Australia. Available: http://www.benandjerry.com.au/values
[Accessed 04/11/14 2014].
Bergner, R. M. 2011. What is Behavior? New Ideas In Psychology, 29, 147-155.
Bhattacharya, C., Sen, S. & Korschun, D. 2007. Corporate social responsibility as an internal
marketing strategy. Sloan Management Review Fall, 1-29.
Blomback, A. & Axelsson, B. 2007. The role of corporate brand image in the selection of new
subcontractors. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22, 418-418-430.
12
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Bohdananowicz, P. & Zientara, P. 2008. Hotel companies' contribution to improving the quality of life
of local communities and the well-being of their employees. Tourism and Hospitality Research,
9, 147-158.
Bryman, A. 1984. The Debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A Question of Method or
Epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, 34, 75-92.
Carroll, A. 1999. Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business &
society, 38, 268-295.
Carroll, A. & Shabana, K. 2010. The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of
Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 85-105.
Cheney, G. & Tompkins, P. 1987. Coming to terms with organizational identification and commitment.
Central States Speech Journal, 38, 1-15.
Collier, J. & Esteban, R. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business
Ethics: A European Review, 16, 19-33.
Dahlsrud, A. 2008. How Corporate Social Responsibiltity is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1-13.
Dall‟olmo Riley, F. & De Chernatony, L. 2000. The Service Brand as Relationships Builder. British
Journal of Management, 11, 137-150.
Davies, I. & Crane, A. 2010. Corporate social responsibility in small‐and medium‐size enterprises:
investigating employee engagement in fair trade companies. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 19, 126-139.
De Bakker, F., 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, 283-317.
De Chernatony, L. 2002. Would a Brand Smell any Sweeter by a Corporate Name? Corporate
Reputation Review, 5, 114-132.
De Chernatony, L. & Dall'olmo Riley, F. 1998a. Defining A Brand: Beyond The Literature With Experts'
Interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 417-443.
De Chernatony, L. & Dall'olmo Riley, F. 1998b. Modelling the components of the brand. European
Journal of Marketing, 32, 1074-1081.
De Chernatony, L. & Dall'olmo Riley, F. 1999. Experts' Views About Defining Services Brands and the
Principles of Services Branding. journal of Business Research, 46, 181-192.
De Chernatony, L. & Segal-Horn, S. 2003. The criteria for successful services brands. European
Journal of Marketing, 37, 1095.
Devin, B. & Lane, A. 2014. Communicating engagement in corporate social responsibility: A metalevel. Journal of Public Relations Research.
Dowling, G. 1986. Managing your corporate images. Industrial Marketing Management, 15, 109-115.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. & Sen, S. 2010. Maximising Business Returns to Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 10, 8-19.
Eagly, A. & Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes, Orlando, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers.
Elkington, J. 2006. Governance for Sustainability. Governance for sustainability, 14, 522-529.
Freeman, R. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.
Freeman, R. & Mcvea, J. 2001. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. SSRN eLibrary.
Fruchter, G. E. & Sigué, S. P. 2005. Transactions vs. Relationships: What Should the Company
Emphasize? Journal of Service Research, 8, 18-36.
Gjolberg, M. 2009. The origin of corporate social responsibility: global forces or national legacies?
Socio-Economic Review, 7, 605-637.
Gray, R. & Milne, M. 2002. Sustainability Reporting: Who‟s Kidding Whom? William Evans Fellowship:
University of Otago.
Greenwood, M. 2007. Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility. Journal
of Business Ethics, 74, 315-327.
Harris, F. & De Chernatony, L. 2001. Corporate branding and corporate brand performance. European
Journal of Marketing, 35, 441.
13
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Hatch, M. & Schultz, M. 2001. Are the strategic stars aligned for your coporate brand? Harvard
Business Review, 79, 128-134.
Henley, S. 1984. Unconscious perceptions re-visited; A comment of Merikle's (1982) paper. Bulletin of
the Psychonomic Society, 22, 121-124.
Hoeffler, S. & Keller, K. 2002. Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal Marketing. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 21, 78-89.
Holcomb, J., Upchurch, R. & Okumus, F. 2007. Corporate social responsibility: What are top hotel
companies reporting? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19, 461475.
Ind, N. & Bjerke, R. 2007. The concept of participatory market orientation: an organisation-wide
approach to enhancing brand equity. Brand Management, 15, 1354-145.
Jabbour, C. 2011. HRM, ergonomics and work psychodynamics: a model and a research agenda.
Humanomics, 27, 53-60.
Jenkins, H. 2006. Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business
Ethics, 67, 241-256.
Jones, P., Comfort, D. & Hillier, D. 2006. Reporting and reflecting on corporate social responsibiltiy in
the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18,
329-340.
Kahn, K. 1996. Interdepartmental Integration: A Definition with Implications for Product Development
Performance. Jounal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 137-151.
Keller, K. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57, 1-22.
Keller, K. & Richey, K. 2006. The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a successful 21st
century business. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 74.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. & Wong, V. 1996. Principles of Marketing: The European
Edition, Hempstead, Prentice Hall.
Lamberti, L. & Lettieri, E. 2009. CSR Practices and Corporate Strategy: Evidence from a Longitudinal
Case Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 153 -168.
Lindgreen, A. & Swaen, V. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 1-7.
Manaktola, K. & Januhari, V. 2007. Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards green
practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 19, 364-377.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. & Swaen, V. 2009. Designing and Implementing Corporate Social
Responsibility: An Integrative Framework Grounded in Theory and Practice. Journal of
Business Ethics, 87, 71-89.
Mattila, A. & Hanks, L. 2012. Antecedents to participation in corporate social responsibility programs.
Journal of Service Management, 23, 664-676.
Mohrman, S., Gibson, C. & Mohrman, A. 2001. Doing research that is useful to practice a model and
empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 357-375.
Noland, J. & Phillips, R. 2010. Stakeholder Engagement, Discourse Ethics and Strategic Management.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 39-49.
Nord, W. & Fuller, S. 2009. Increasing Corporate Social Responsibility Through an Employee-centered
Approach. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21, 279-290.
Patton, M. 2005. Qualitatve Research. In: EVERITT, B. & HOWELL, D. (eds.) Encyclopedia of
Statistics in Behavioural Science. Chichester: John Wiley &Sons, Ltd.
Perry, C. 1998. Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing.
European Journal of Marketing, 32, 785-802.
Pomering, A. & Dolnicar, S. 2009. Assessing the prerequisite of Successful CSR Implementation: Are
Consumers Aware of CSR Initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 285-301.
Pomering, A. & Johnson, L. 2009. Advertising corporate social responsibility initiatives to communicate
corporate image, Inhibiting sceptisism to enhance persuasion. International Journal of
Corporate Communications, 14, 420-439.
14
Proceedings of 29th International Business Research Conference
24 - 25 November 2014, Novotel Hotel Sydney Central, Sydney, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-64-1
Pope, C., Ziebland, S. & Mays, N. 2000. Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data.
BMJ, 320, 114-116.
Powell, S. 2011. The nexus between ethical corporate marketing, ethical corporate identity and
corporate social responsibility: An internal organisational perspective. European Journal of
Marketing, 45, 1365-1379.
Powell, S., Davies, M. & Norton, D. 2013. Impact of organizational climate on ethical empowerment
and engagement with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Journal of Brand Management.
Reid, M., Luxton, S. & Mavondo, F. 2005. The Relationship Between Integrated Marketing
Communication, Market Orientation, and Brand Orientation. Journal of Advertising, 34, 11-23.
Rokkan, A. & Haugland, S. 2002. Developing relational exchange: Effectiveness and power. European
Journal of Marketing, 36, 211-211-230.
Rupp, D., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. & Williams, C. 2006. Employee reactions to corporate social
responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 537543.
Sen, S. & Bhattacharya, C. 2001. Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer
Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225-243.
Smith, C. 2003. Corporate Social Responsibility: WHETHER OR HOW? California Management
Review 45, 52-76.
Smith, D. & Fletcher, J. 2004. The Art & Science of Interpreting Market Research Evidence,
Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sobh, R. & Chad, P. 2006. Research design and data analysis in realism research. European Journal
of Marketing, 40, 1194-1209.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. & Waddock, S. 2010. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The
role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 463-490.
Urde, M. 1994. Brand Orientation - A strategy for Survival. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11, 18-32.
Urde, M. 1999. Brand Orientation: A minset for building brands into strategic resources. Journal of
Marketing Management, 15, 117-133.
Urde, M. 2003. Core value-based corporate brand building. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 10171040.
Vallaster, C. & De Chernatony, L. 2005. Internationalisation of services brands: the role of leadership
during the internal brand building process. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 181-203.
Waddock, S. & Mcintosh, M. 2011. Business Unusual: Corporate Responsibility in a 2.0 World*.
Business and Society Review, 116, 303-330.
Walsh, K. 2003. Qualitative research: advancing the science and practice of hospitality. The Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44, 66-74.
Wildes, V. 2008. How can organizational leaders really lead and serve at the same time? International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 67-76.
Wong, H. & Merrilees, B. 2007. Closing the marketing strategy to performance gap; the role of brand
orientation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15, 387-402.
Wood, D. 2010. Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 10, 50-84.
15