CSR implementation in Belgium: Institutional context, stakeholder involvement and the
impact of CSR managers
Introduction
Some authors have argued that the understanding of CSR and of its firm-level implementation
depends heavily upon the prevailing institutional context in a country and the according
national public policy on CSR (Jackson & Apostolakou, 2010; Matten & Moon, 2008).
Hence, the tendency towards corporate responsible behavior varies between different
countries and regions (Campbell, 2007). In our study we intend to understand the actual CSR
implementation process and the according level of stakeholder involvement in Belgium. First,
we observe that Belgium is a federal monarchy composed of three regions: Flanders,
Walloonia, and Brussels-Capital region. These regions have each their own institutions (incl.
parliament), and different political, social and economic dynamics. Therefore, we choose to
focus on the current study on only one of these regions, i.e. Flanders, the Dutch speaking
region of Belgium. Next, we note that a firm’s CSR engagement entails separate corporate
social actions (CSAs) which firms need to select, invest resources in and implement (Husted,
2003). This CSR decision and implementation process can take place with or without the
involvement of the firm’s stakeholders. Specifically, we will then examine whether and how
CSR managers, within the specific institutional context in which they operate, actually
involve stakeholders in CSR implementation. In that way, we do not only aim to examine the
impact of the prevailing institutional context, but also of the actual CSR manager’s role.
Furthermore, this qualitative analysis is combined with a survey analysis that specifically
reviews the role and characteristics of CSR managers in Belgium. Within the scope of this
paper, the term ‘CSR manager’ will be used as a generic denomination for any individual with
a specific responsibility for CSR as part of his or her job description and/or function title.
Research set-up
CSR is at heart a process of managing individual stakeholders in a systemic, and goal-oriented
way, making choices between their conflicting interests and implementing CSR actions in
accordance (Kaptein & Van Tulder, 2003). These CSR implementation decisions can be made
exclusively by management or together with the stakeholders of the firm. According to the
Belgian CSR reference framework (ICDO, 2006), the legal framework for CSR in Belgium,
CSR is a process which should take place in consultation with the firm’s stakeholders. In
recent years, stakeholder theory has indeed put increased focus on collaborating with
stakeholders, rather than unilaterally managing them (Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Through a
targeted discussion of the stakeholders’ expectations in a dialogue, firms can express their
commitment, reach an agreement and can develop CSR actions in accordance (Kapstein &
Van Tulder, 2003; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Morsing & Schultz (2006) refer to this as a
‘stakeholder involvement strategy’. Instead of merely ‘informing’ the results of already
implemented CSR actions in a one-way information feeding exercise, stakeholders are being
involved in a systematic and proactive dialogue. This proactive ‘involvement’ strategy
however can in no way be confused with a ‘stakeholder response strategy’. Hence,
stakeholder involvement should not be seen as the outcome of CSR implementation, but
rather as a necessary precondition prior to selecting specific CSR actions. Rather than simply
imposing a certain CSR action, the proactive involvement of stakeholders assures that the
company keeps better abreast “not only of its stakeholders’ concurrent expectations but also
of its potential influence on those expectations” (Morsing and Schultz, 2006, p.328). Hence,
as a result, firms might develop an increased sophistication in relation to CSR, with a higher
number of CSR actions that are better adapted to the expectations of a wider variety of
stakeholders.
Because of the potential value of proactive stakeholder involvement in the context of
CSR implementation, we aim to examine to what extent Belgian organizations currently
demonstrate this practice. Moreover, we will accord specific attention to both the institutional
context and to the role of dedicated CSR managers to clarify the current state-of-affairs. First,
we intend to give a review of the current governmental and multi-stakeholder initiatives and
networks in Flanders that promote CSR and discuss the potential impact of this particular
institutional context. Jackson and Apostolakou (2010) argue, by building upon institutional
theory, that “CSR does not operate in a vacuum” (Jackson and Apostolakou, 2010, p. 387)
and that the national context and the extent to which CSR practices are institutionally
embedded, impacts the implementation of CSR at the firm-level. Moreover, several
researchers state that the way firms treat their stakeholders equally depends on the institutions
within which they operate (Campbell, 2007). Jackson and Apostolakou (2010) specifically
demonstrate that coordinated and highly regulated market economies1, such as Belgium, score
lower on the social and environmental dimensions of CSR. These authors argue that, exactly
because of high levels of regulation and institutionalized stakeholder involvement, there is
simply less scope for individual firms to develop a high number of explicit CSR actions,
resulting in a more reactive stance towards CSR. Campbell (2007), on the other hand, argues
that precisely the existence of public and private regulation, of monitoring organizations, of
institutionalized norms and values regarding CSR, of private firm networks and of organized
dialogues between firms and their stakeholders, acts as an incentive and makes firms more
likely to proactively engage in corporate social behavior.
Triggered by these conflicting views, we intend to examine in our study how managers
themselves perceive the impact of the Belgian CSR public policy and institutional context on
how they implement CSR and deal with stakeholders. In addition, we will confront their
opinions with their actual CSR implementation process and the according levels of
stakeholder involvement. Our aim here is not to test a preconceived hypothesis but rather to
allow the emergence of theories from data.
Second, we equally intend to examine the potential impact of CSR managers on the
CSR implementation process. In a 2011 study of the Belgian CSR network “Business and
Society Belgium” among 510 firms (Business and Society Belgium, 2011), stakeholder
dialogue does come out as a priority for the surveyed firms. However, only 30,37% of these
firms seem to actually involve (through a collaboration or partnership) their main stakeholders
in their CSR implementation decisions. In the other cases, stakeholders are merely being
informed or consulted with regard to already implemented actions. The results of the
international empirical analysis of Crutzen and Hörisch (2013) are found to be consistent with
this finding as well and confirm that the majority of Belgian firms probably do not engage on
a regular basis or in a systematic way with their stakeholders. Interestingly however,
according to the Business and Society Belgium study (2011), firms which have appointed a
specific CSR manager seem to achieve a higher level of active stakeholder involvement and
of actual CSR engagement. Specifically, they found that in Belgium 82,5% of the large firms,
65% of the SMEs and even 44% of the very small firms has a an employee who is responsible
for CSR.
1
A coordinated market economy is the typical national business system for countries in Continental
Europe, as compared with the liberal-market economies of the Anglo-Saxon countries (Jackson & Apostolakou,
2010). This system is characterized by “long-term-term debt finance, ownership by large block-holders, weak
markets for corporate control, strong inter-firm cooperation and rather rigid labor markets” (Jackson &
Apostolakou, 2010, p. 375).
The influence of CSR managers has always been rather ambiguous; while some argue
that CSR managers provide important leverage to change (Werther & Chandler, 2005, 2011),
others (Elkington, Emerson & Beloe, 2006; Visser, 2010) strongly nuance the importance of
these managers. The creation of a CSR manager and department is sometimes considered an
act of window dressing with CSR being a marginalized activity “left to a dedicated
department with the task of getting the message out about a company’s good work” (Smith &
Lenssen, 2009, p. 21). However, as research on CSR managers is largely absent, we lack
empirical backing on whether or not it is beneficial for firms to dedicate resources and
responsibilities to this CSR manager position and thus to reward it with leadership support.
As more and more top managers seek for guidance on how to implement CSR, we deem
further analysis on the CSR manager’s role to be of particular value. For this reason, we
equally aim to examine the potential impact of dedicated CSR managers on stakeholder
involvement in CSR implementation.
Methodology
In this exploratory study, our main objective is to understand stakeholder involvement
practices during CSR implementation in Belgian organizations, by equally discussing the
impact of the prevailing institutional context and of CSR managers. Our methodology will
include both a qualitative analysis and quantitative survey. First, we opt to use a case-based
qualitative research methodology as this enables us to get an in-depth understanding of
(CSR-related) decision processes (Yin, 1992). By carefully selecting three reference
organizations, we intend to get a first insight into how different Belgian organizations, public
and private, are implementing CSR and are involving stakeholders. Specifically, we will start
by examining the department of work and social economy (DWSE), a Flemish government
agency, through four group discussions and a number of individual interviews. Through the
implementation of CSR actions itself, a government could set the example and influence
private-firm business practices. Therefore, it is highly valuable to start our research by
examining CSR implementation processes at the government-level. Next, we intend to
compare our results with the private sector and examine both an MNE and SME. Belgium is
a small open economy composed out of a rather limited number of MNE affiliates and a very
high density of SMEs (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003). SMEs account for 98 % of total business
activity (European Commission, 2012) and 67.4% of total employment in Belgium.
Therefore, it is important to not only have an MNE case-study, but to equally pay attention to
an SME. For the actual data collection, the authors will triangulate data by undertaking both
document analyses and semi-structured interviews with the (CSR) managers of the firm.
Furthermore, by examining both a government agency, an MNE and SME, we want to assure
that we cover all kinds of possible CSR manifestations.
Second, we will compare these results with results of a survey that specifically
examines the role of the CSR manager in Belgium. As this survey was not specifically
designed for this research and examines both Belgian and Dutch CSR managers, we will here
extract the results for the Belgian subsample. Our research methodology in conducting this
survey was twofold. First, we have executed a pilot study, interviewing five Belgian CSR
managers that were randomly selected. This pretest enabled us to check survey measures and
probe our assumptions. Furthermore, the interviews were exploratory in nature in that they
permitted us to track down distinctive characteristics of CSR managers and of the
organizational structures in which they are embedded. Hence, the actual questionnaire
contains both general questions, looking into the main characteristics of the sampled CSR
managers (e.g. which department, reporting level, etc.) and more specific ones, aiming at
assessing CSR managers’ actual impact with regard to the CSR implementation process.
Second, this survey was sent by email to a non-random sample of 459 both Belgian and
Dutch CSR managers. For CSR managers to be included within this sample, their firm had to
be member of one of four official CSR networks or organizations, promoting CSR
implementation in The Netherlands or Belgium (i.e. MVO Nederland, MVO Vlaanderen,
Kauri and Business and Society Belgium). Based on this voluntary membership, we selected
firms with a CSR agenda, and a higher probability of actually having a CSR manager. Next,
these firms were explicitly checked, using information available on the official firms’
websites, on the actual presence of a manager with a clearly defined CSR responsibility.
Eventually 107 individuals, covering different sectors, returned the survey, resulting in a
response rate of 23,31%. Of this number, 19 individuals appeared to be Belgium CSR
managers. Together they form the subsample for which survey results will be discussed in
this paper.
Preliminary and expected results
Zappala (2003) suggested four possible public policy options for governments to promote
CSR: do nothing, regulation and legislation, non-regulatory activism and best practice
demonstration. Preliminary results show that the Belgian government mainly chooses to adopt
the traditional approach of legislation and regulation. CSR in Belgium is particularly framed
within a continental model of welfare state in which social considerations are anchored in the
law and governments intend to build legal frameworks for CSR as well (Louche et al., 2009).
Accordingly, Belgium, as a coordinated market economy, is associated with very
institutionalized forms of stakeholder dialogue (Jackson & Apostolakou, 2010). Society’s
needs regarding CSR are being agreed through its institutions, resulting in several
requirements, rules, norms and values for firms. In 2006, the CSR concept in Belgium indeed
has been consolidated through the development of the national CSR reference framework
(ICDO, 2006) and the first Flemish strategy for sustainable development (SERV, 2007).
Because of the high level of regulation, most of it being ‘soft law’, we could hypothesize that
Belgian firms merely choose to follow these existing laws, rules and norms when
implementing CSR, without being much inclined to adopt a more proactive CSR
implementation process, with high levels of proactive stakeholder involvement.
However, we do expect CSR managers to have a positive impact on this. Preliminary
survey results suggest that most CSR managers tend to report to the CEO or to a level just
beneath, indicating that the CSR manager in Belgium does receive sufficient top management
support to impact the CSR implementation process. Furthermore, the level of organizational
tenure of the surveyed managers seems to indicate that the CSR management position is most
often being assigned to individuals with rather high seniority, and thus possibly with a high
level of decision power and impact. Therefore, we might expect that the existence of a CSR
manager positively interferes with the institutional impact, and drives a more proactive CSR
approach, with higher levels of proactive stakeholder involvement.
Bibliography
Business and Society Belgium, 2011, Barometer 2011 van de maatschappelijke
verantwoordelijkheid. Brussels: Business and Society Belgium. Retrieved October 15,
2012, from http://www.business andsociety.be/nl/Documenten/Thematische-publicaties.
Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder
management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453-470.
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review,
32(3), 946-967.
Crutzen, N. & Hörisch, J. (2013). Is Belgium lagging begind in sustainability management?
An international empirical analysis. British Academy of Management Proceedings.
Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.bam.ac.uk/news-story/6171.
Elkington, J., Emerson, J. & Beloe, S. (2006). The value palette: a tool for full spectrum
strategy. California Management Review, 48(2), 6-28.
European Commission (2012). SBA-factsheet 2012. Brussels: EC. Retrieved October 30,
2013,
from
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figuresanalysis/performance-review/files/countries-sheets/2012/belgium_nl.pdf.
Heene, A., Langenberg, S., & Dentchev, N. (2005). A Hot Topic in Contemporary
Management. In A. Habish & J. Jonker (Eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility Across
Europe (pp. 77-86). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Husted, B. W. (2003). Governance choices for corporate social responsibility: to contribute,
collaborate or internalize? Long Range Planning, 36(5), 481-498.
ICDO (2006). Referentiekader: maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen in België.
Retrieved
October
30,
2013,
from
http://www.miis.be/sites/default/files/doc/publicatie_MVORefKader.pdf.
Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe:
An institutional mirror or substitute? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 371-394.
Kaptein, M., & Van Tulder, R. (2003). Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and
Society Review, 108(2), 203-224.
Louche, C., Van Liedekerke, L., Everaert, P., LeRoy, D., Rossy, A., & d'Huart, M. (2009).
Belgium. In S.O. Idowu & W.L. Filho (Eds.), Global practices of corporate social
responsibility (pp. 125-147). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management
Review, 33(2), 404-424.
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication:
stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 15(4), 323-338.
SERV (2007). Maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen: van goede indruk maken naar
duurzame indruk achterlaten. Brussels: Social Economic Council Flanders. Retrieved
October 30, 2013, from http://www.serv.be/serv/page/maatschappelijk-verantwoordondernemen-campagne-2007.
Smith, N.C. & Lenssen, G. (2009). Mainstreaming Corporate Responsibility. John Wiley
and Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, England.
Visser, W. (2010). CSR 2.0: The evolution and revolution of corporate social responsibility.
In M. Pohl & N. Tolhurst (eds.) Responsible business: how to manage a CSR strategy
successfully. Wiley, West-Sussex.
Werther, W.B. & Chandler, D. (2005). Strategic corporate social responsibility as global
brand insurance. Business Horizons, 48, 317-324.
Werther, W.B. & Chandler, D. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility: stakeholders
in a global environment. Sage publications, California.
Yin, R. K. (1992). The case study method as a tool for doing evaluation. Current Sociology,
40(1), 121-137.
Zappalà, G. (2003). Corporate Citizenship and the Role of Government: The Public Policy
Case. (Research Paper No. 4) Australia. Information and Research Services, Department
of the Parliamentary Library.