Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility – Brand management

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies
Vol. 12, No. 2 (2007)
4
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/
Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility – Brand management
Cecilia Mark-HerbertCarolina von Schantz
Abstract
Corporate action is subject to more scrutiny than ever. An attempt to legitimize the corporate role is seen in corporate social responsibility as a part of a triple bottom line framework. Corporate principles are communicated in various forms to a wide set of stakeholders. Ideally, what is communicated in terms of principles is also seen in busi¬ness practice. In cases where the principles and actions differ, the platform for creating a brand terri¬tory is limited. The communication platform is affected by, for example, corporate documents, actions and media perceptions. The studied cases, from the construction indus¬try, illustrate how media portrays business conduct. It shows that the corporate communication strategy is affected by media’s verdicts. Driven by outside pressure, a set of ethical principles were declared but they received little attention since their press release was poorly timed; the press release coincided with a scandal of unethical business con¬duct concerning the same company. Branding represents a cornerstone in the corporate marketing umbrella. It is a simplifying symbol that helps stakeholders distinguish between sales offers. Credence values such as social responsibility and ethical business conduct are intangible; the brand thus becomes a guarantee for the communicated social values.
Keywords
CSR, brand management, com¬munication, construction business, marketing
Introduction
”Business is not divorced from the rest of society. How companies behave affects many people, not just shareholders. A company should be a responsible mem¬ber of the society in which it operates” (Internet, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1, 2006).
Businesses and their role in society are subject to more intense scrutiny than ever. What is the main purpose of a company’s existence? Is it simply to maximize prof¬its in order to satisfy the owners’ requests and demands, or is it possible to see the company in a larger perspective in soci¬ety? Should this perspective go beyond pure financial aspects of the activities? The quotation above refers to the ongo¬ing debate about corporate responsibil¬ity. Besides being a profitable business, the responsibility of a company can, for example, be connected to programs for fair treatment of employees, using sus¬tainable environmental friendly methods and participating actively in discussions about ethical social dilemmas (Löhman & Steinholz, 2003; Philipson, 2004). It is a discussion about how companies choose to do business, solely with finan¬cial objectives or in a responsible way that might affect the financial return, support¬ing other values.
The ongoing debate concerning the role of the businesses in the community is an expression of expanded corporate responsibilities referred to as CSR, cor¬porate social responsibility, or CR, Cor¬porate Responsibility (Löhman & Stein¬holz, 2003). There is no one universally accepted definition (Whitehouse, 2006), but a number of organizations and com¬panies have their own interpretation of CSR. The European Union states the fol¬lowing about the definition of CSR:
“CSR is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental con¬cerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (Internet, EU 1, 2006).
CSR is regarded as a part of the “triple bottom line”, a concept that was coined by Elkinton (1998) in which sustainability is built on financial, environmental and social grounds. Working actively with CSR by taking actions in favour of main¬taining the balance between these three values is not regulated by laws; it is a vol¬untary initiative (Hollender & Fenichell, 2004; Mbare, 2004; Löhman & Stein¬holz, 2003).
Despite the increased focus on corpo¬rate responsibility, the question of the business community’s role in society is not a new phenomenon. Companies have always been a part of society, but their role and responsibilities have become some¬what unclear, leaving room for individual interpretations of private and public do¬mains (Henriques & Richardson, 2004; Löhman & Steinholz, 2003). There are presently a number of multinational cor¬porations acting all over the world in the spirit of the globalization trend (Arnold, 1993; Internet, CSRwire 1, 2004; Löh¬man & Steinholz, 2003; Michael, 2003). The 100 largest economies in the world today are represented by only 50 coun¬tries; the rest are multinational corpora¬tions (Foley, 2003, 5; Veres, 2001).
An increased awareness and focus of the responsibilities of a corporation gives the business communities the op¬portunity to be important and powerful actors in society (Nilsson, 2005; Ruggie, 2002). Companies are encouraged to ac¬tively work with CSR. But it is not only an opportunity given to the companies; it is also in many cases expectation by customers, employees, society and other stakeholders.
This article illustrates how corporate responsibility is integrated in credible brand management, assuming that busi¬ness needs to “walk the talk” as well as “chalk the walk”, in other words com¬municate their corporate responsibility conduct. The challenge lies in commu¬nicating corporate values expressed in strategies and every day procedures to stakeholders with a variety of interests and expectations (Whitehouse, 2006).
This project is based on a case study of one of the largest construction compa¬nies in Sweden, Skanska (von Schantz, 2005). The objective of the case study is to provide an empirical picture of how a large corporation handles communica¬tion of CSR issues. The empirical picture is built on how CSR-related news regard¬ing Skanska appears in media.

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies
Vol. 12, No. 2 (2007)
5
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/
Enacting verbal communication
“For most companies, the question is not whether to commu¬nicate but rather what to say, to whom, and how often” (Kotler, 2003, 563). “Companies are concerned with their customers and it is about time they treated society as a whole in the same manner.” (Veludo-de-Oliveria, 2006, 26).
These quotes suggest that it is not a question of whether or not to communicate, for companies today. It is a question of how to communicate. Integrated corporate communication refers to the fact that a company sends “a message” to a wide set of stake¬holders with everything it does (Arnold, 1993; Best, 2004; Löh¬man & Steinholz, 2003). Business cards, letters, homepages, the way the employees are headed, the way customers are treated - it is all a part of how business is conducted. The business conduct with regards to CSR matters is included (Hollender & Fen¬ichell, 2004; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Löhman & Steinholz, 2003; Internet CSRwire, 2005).
Socially mature businesses lead the way for incorporating CSR principles in business conduct. Socially active companies, like the Body Shop and Ben & Jerry’s, have been pioneers in the work and communication of CSR (Hollender & Fenichell, 2004; Mbare, 2004; Thayer Robins, 2001). Large corporations have followed in their footsteps; McDonalds (Nilsson, 2005) has implemented social and environmental programs, for exam¬ple, promoting fish conservation, and Unilever has started pro¬grams by including references about human rights in its busi¬ness principles (Takala, 1996).
The question of how CSR is communicated is a research area still to be explored (Lindfeldt, 2006; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Takala, 1996). Even businesses with a clearly unsus¬tainable business idea, such as the oil and petroleum industry, make efforts in communicating awareness of sustainability issues (Doane, 2004, 82). An example is Shell’s communica¬tion in their advertisement campaign: “Profits and Principles. Is there a choice?” (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). In an attempt to create an awareness of a socially responsible profile, British Petroleum changed its name to BP and marketed the tagline “Beyond Petroleum” to emphasize its commitment to the search for environmentally sustainable alternatives in the energy sec¬tor (Ibid.). These examples of corporate efforts to communicate ethical stands, based on a rather thin approach, are labelled as transactional CSR (Palazzo & Richter, 2005). Businesses with a more sustainable business idea, such as construction, may op¬erate on a more sustainable basis, with so called transformation¬al CSR (Ibid.). Regardless of the basis for the business, ethical principles are communicated. However, the old expression “all publicity is good publicity” is no longer valid in today’s harsh competitive markets (Apéria & Back, 2004). Getting publicity and being in focus because of a neglecting attitude towards CSR issues is hardly a situation a company wants to face. Communi¬cation thus becomes an important part in ensuring future busi¬ness (Charter & Polonsky, 1999).
Stakeholders in a dialogue
CSR communication is still an area to be explored (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Takala, 1996). The relevant partners in a CSR dialogue need to be identified in order to provide grounds for investment in CSR conduct and a meaningful continued dia¬logue. These partners, sometimes labelled senders and receivers, are referred to collectively as stakeholders (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004), sometimes with a division in primary, indispensable, and secondary, supportive stakeholders (Whitehouse, 2006).
Internal and external stakeholders (Figure 1) are mutually dependant on one another, presented in relation to the com¬pany, illustrated as the gray circle in the middle. Internal stake¬holders are a part of, and heavily dependant on, daily operations that limit a company’s relative strengths and weaknesses on a market. The external stakeholders constitute the framework of the company that may affect the company’s opportunities and threats.
Traditionally, companies have paid more attention to their internal stakeholders, in particular the shareholders (or stock¬holders), than to the rest of the stakeholders (Kotler, 2000). The term shareholder refers to the owners of the company, stressing the financial aspects, the bottom line, of a company perform¬ance within a particular time frame (Lazonick & O’Sullivan, 2000, 13). The term “stakeholders” signifies a wider perspective in terms of meeting expectations and the time frame to do so. A traditional and brief list of stakeholders, besides the sharehold¬ers, could be consumers, workers, investors, suppliers, distribu¬tors, host communities, media, general society and world eco¬logical community (Deetz, 1995, 50-51). These stakeholders’
External Stakeholders
Host Community
Unions
Competitors
Internal Stakeholders
Distributors
Banks and Investors
Management
Society at large
Board of Directors
Customers
Employees
World Ecological Community
Shareholders
Regulatory agencies
Suppliers
Trade associations
Media
Professional Society
Figure 1. An example of a model for external and internal stakeholders of a company (insipration from Deetz 1995, 50-51).
EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies Vol. 12, No. 2 (2007) 6 http://ejbo.jyu.fi/
demands and expectations may imply conflicting needs and in¬terests. Companies that strive to satisfy the needs of the differ¬ent groups of stakeholders will meet a cumbersome challenge. One way of addressing this issue is to group stakeholders with similar interests (authorities, business partners, financial actors, external influence and customer groups) to accommodate to each group’s interests (Dowling, 2001).
Among the external stakeholders, media deserves particular attention. What is portrayed in media will influence internal as well as other external stakeholders that in their turn may af¬fect others. Their role can be seen as ambassadors of messages and opinions (Thorstenson, 2006). If a message or an opinion is stated by a strong ambassador, a trustworthy person, it is more likely that the word carries beyond the primary reader. The ef¬fect can be compared to ripples on a body of water.
Communication – creating an image
Communication is defined as the process by which information is transmitted and understood between two or more parties (McShane & Von Glinow, 2003). The communicational aspects of an organization have become an increasingly important stra¬tegic issue; emphasizing that communication must be effectively adjusted for the intended target group (Larsson, 1997).
Communication can be described as information flows through various channels between a sender and a receiver, in¬cluding confirmation of a message and elements of disturbance in the process (Nitsch, 1998; Shannons & Weaver, 1949). The communication process thus implies that what a company “says” (brand character, an image) is not always what is perceived by the receiver (consumer insights, a profile) or based in product characteristics (Figure 2).
In the model (Figure 2), the desired image is supported through active communication. Senders and receivers of infor¬mation create a picture that is labelled profile. Senders of in¬formation may include any stakeholder, sharing information. The communication also includes non-verbal messages such as pictures, logos and symbols. There are a number of barriers in a communication process, sometimes referred to as noise. Dif¬ferences in perceptions, filtering, cultures, languages, distortion in perspective and the information overload are all examples of communication barriers (McShane & Von Glinow, 2003). Per¬ceptions of product characteristics refer to consumer’s experi¬ence of the product in question. The intersecting area in Fig¬ure 2 of characteristics, profile and image is labelled territory. It refers to a coinciding perception of values – in other words a shared perception of what the brand promises and of the prod¬uct experience. A large territory (Garriga & Melé, 2004; Prin¬gle and Thompson, 1999) would thus serve as an ideal basis to build a communication platform.
The classical communication platforms to build a brand are advertising, sales promotion, public relations and publicity as well as personal contacts where the primary aim is to maximize the surface that leads to increased sales (Kotler, 2003; Kotler et al., 1999). This is a rather short-sighted and narrow perception of communication. An alternative way of describing the differ¬ent communication platforms is to talk about communication options (Keller, 2001) with a wider set of goals for what the communication aims at and a longer time perspective to do so (Henriques & Richardson, 2004; Thorstensson, 2006). The key point is that the sender of a message must make active choices in communications and evaluate the outcome in a long term per¬spective, above and beyond sales statistics to establish a solid territory for building a corporate image.
The phenomenon of branding is not new in the business com¬munity, but the awareness of its strategic value has developed considerably (Arnold, 1993; Kay, 2006; Keller, 2001; Riezebos, 2003). All organizations and industrial actors are judged by their “corporate marketing umbrella”, where the brand serves as one cornerstone in communication (Balmer & Greysner, 2006). The definition of a brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol or de¬sign, or a combination of these, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or a group of sellers and to differenti¬ate them from those of competitors” (Keller, 1998, 37). The
Consumer insights
Profile
“Territory“
Product truth
Characteristics
Brand character
Image
Figure 2. The term “territory” explains the common grounds for perceptions of a brand (Pringle and Thompson, 1999, 155, with additions). In positioning a brand, the ideal situation is a large territory, which from a consumer perspective refers to a brand that provides the anticipated values.
EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies Vol. 12, No. 2 (2007) 7 http://ejbo.jyu.fi/ basic function of a brand is to help the customer identify the suppliers and simplify the selection among the multiple choices on a market. Th is way of explaining the function of a brand is regarded to be a mechanical aspect of product diff erentiation and a extended way of describing the function of a brand is to explain it as a personality of a product (Figure 3), making the customers emotionally attached and loyal to the company (Ar nold, 1993). Company A Brand A Company B Brand B Business & brand image “Upwards generatisation“ Product characteristics “Downwards generatisation“ Products Products “Discrimination“ - to see differences Figure 3. A brand and company name is a carrier of strategic value. The value of the brand and the company name is based on customers’ previous experiences that are generalized (Mark-Herbert, 2004, 6). Th e function of a brand in Figure 3 illustrates the fact that stakeholders make generalizations based on perceived commu nication and previous experiences (Mark-Herbert, 2004). Th e upward and downward generalization in the fi gure refers to how customers associate the brand of the company with the experi ence they have with a product. Likewise, in the downwards gen eralization the customer connect the company name and brand to expectations of a product. A negative product experience will aff ect the perception of the brand in a negative way, while a posi tive experience will support a good perception of a company and a brand. Discrimination between brands and experiences refers to separating diff erent product off ers, supported by brand and company names - to see the diff erences. Th e brand serves as a symbol for the profi le, which in the best of cases, coincides with the desired image. When the product off er is hard to evaluate, the brand may serve as a guarantee, based on previous experiences and a general company profi le. Stakeholders thus rely on the information that is communicat ed through a brand. Th e brand as such is “charged” positively or negatively in communication among stakeholders. A strong brand is desirable, but it is also vulnerable to infl uential stake holders’ negative verdict. An empirical study - Approach In recent years, the construction sector in Sweden has been fi ghting a reputation of doubtful business ethics (von Schantz, 2005). Th e sector is presently working actively to improve im ages and continue to be a respected part of the Swedish busi ness community (Internet, BI, 2004; Nilsson, 2007). Ethical rules have been formulated and many construction companies are working with CSR issues, but the question of how to suc cessfully communicate the CSR approach remains unsolved. Th e statement below stresses the importance of the question of communication. “Business cannot hope to enjoy concrete benefi ts from CSR unless they intelligently communicate about their initiatives to relevant stakeholders” (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004, 17). Th e general awareness of CSR in society has gradually in creased (Internet, CSRwire, 2005). Media keeps the debate in the public domain and ethical investors and fi nanciers are seek ing more information and raising their expectations progres sively (Bengtsson, 2005 A & B; Mbare, 2004). Th e construction sector, in Sweden, is no exception. Recent history and reputa tion leaves the sector no other choice but working with and communicating a serious approach towards CSR issues. In this study, communication refers to what the media por trays in terms of CSR issues for our focal company. Th e object is to provide a model for how the media coverage aff ects the corporate image in terms of a brand. Th e case study is briefl y presented in this article as an illustration and the full version is available in von Schantz (2005). Th e Skanska Group is a large multinational construction business with their roots in Sweden (Internet, Skanska 1, 2006). It is portrayed in terms of CSR issues in the press as be ing active in a construction sector faced with many CSR related problems and with a corporate history of bad publicity. A recent scandal, in 2005, was an extensive use of cartels in the construc tion industry. As many as 46% of the managers in the study ad mitted to knowing of cartels in their business, which reinforces the notion of poor ethical conduct in general (Nordgren, 2005). Skanska was not found guilty of being a part of the cartel in 2005, but similar problems are a part of Skanska’s history, thus a motive for taking the issues of responsible conduct seriously. EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies Vol. 12, No. 2 (2007) 8 http://ejbo.jyu.fi/
Despite the fact that Skanska has worldwide operations (Dav¬idson, 2004), this study has been limited to the activities in re¬cent years on the Swedish market in order to give CSR issues one cultural setting.
The other actor of particular interest in this study is media. Relevant media has been selected from the daily business press published in Sweden and is represented by the two largest news papers: Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) and Dagens Nyheter (DN), as well as the largest daily business news paper, Dagens Indus¬tri (DI). The selected papers cover the major business activi¬ties in Sweden and the articles from the papers are available in databases. Other media, such as radio and TV, have not been examined due to the complexity in collecting data. The data col¬lected from articles in the newspapers are published in the year of 2001 to 2003 since the chosen research area is of increasing novelty and current interest.
In constructing a case, interviews and articles about CSR have been the primary empirical sources. Throughout the proc¬ess the empirical picture has been modified and validated in a continuous analysis (Kvale, 1997). In this process, qualitative rigor has been achieved through numerous confirming inter¬views with relevant stakeholders (Denzin & Lincon, 1994) and careful documentation that provides grounds for a rich and de¬tailed empirical picture (Stake, 1994, 242).
The Skanska case
The Skanska AB corporation, with over 60,000 employees all over the world, has many closely related actors that may be considered stakeholders of the company. Based on the empiri¬cal material (von Schantz, 2005), examination of reports and interviews, it is fair to state that Skanska has obtained insight about being an actor in the micro- and macro- environment of the company. Representatives of the company talk about the traditional stakeholder groups: employees, the financial market, costumers, competitors, the industry, suppliers, decision mak¬ers, politicians and potential employees. Skanska takes an active role in national and international forums by participating in dif¬ferent industry related events, such as the development of the “Business Principles for Countering Bribery in the Engineering & Construction Industry”, an initiative taken by the industry presented at the World Economic Forum 2004.
Before discussing the present sustainability approach at Skanska further, let us take a look at the history that has pro¬moted the development of CSR policies. Table 1 describes the development in terms of major CSR-related incidents con¬cerning Skanska. It includes the effects of unfavourable media coverage of Skanska during, for example, the toxic scandal of Hallandsåsen, in 1997, a large project where toxic construction material, Rocagil, was used as a sealant in tunnel construction. Internal stakeholders at Skanska, in strategic roles as well as in operational, had an understanding of the difficulties that might be encountered by a large project, such as the Hallandsåsen project. The procedures that Skanska worked along were well established and the construction material had never previously shown this magnitude of environmental effects. The external stakeholders’ insight in Skanska’s conduct and societal role, on the other hand, was less informed and heavily dependant on the profile portrayed by media.
A brief glance at Table 1 gives the same effect that media cov¬erage gave Skanska on a larger scale. The occurrences marked with bold text in the table catch the reader’s attention much the same way in which the media portrayed problematic incidents to a broad range of stakeholders. The grounds for corporate profile are unbalanced, giving the negative verdicts much atten¬tion whereas the positive news receives less attention.
In the early 1990s environmental and CSR issues were not pronounced on the agenda in Skanska (von Schantz, 2005). The Hallandsåsen scandal, in 1997, stimulated top manage¬ment to consider environmental and social aspects of business conduct, but no official commitments were made at that time. Environmental issues were handled in the Environmental Unit at the main office (1999). The notion of the triple bottom line gradually grew in terms of environmental consideration through a benchmarking process with industrial partners that had faced major environmental issues.
As the awareness process continued, a sustainability unit at the main office was founded in 2001, and that very year Skanska proudly presented their Code of Conduct. However this was also the year that the asphalt cartel was exposed by media where Skanska appeared as suspects in an extensive cartel. Working with ethical behaviour by formulating an ethical code and, at the same time, figuring as a suspect in an illegal tangle is a tre¬mendous message collision to the internal as well as the external stakeholders. Media was merciless – they did not buy in to the declared principles, since they clearly were not implemented. As a result, the credibility, reputation and Skanska brand were badly damaged.
Since the scandal in 2001, Skanska has worked actively with ethical aspects of business conduct. The construction industry as a whole has struggled with im¬age problems which indicate that being “aware of CSR” could be competitive advantage for Skan¬ska. Skanska has chosen to talk about sustainability issues instead of CSR and include the social, en¬vironmental and financial values in their definition of sustainabil¬ity. This makes CSR and sustain¬ability synonymous according to the definition of CSR used in this study (the European Union’s defi¬nition of CSR).
In 2002, Skanska released their first Sustainability Report where their code of conduct was made public (Internet, Skanska 1, 2005). It has since become a part of their
Table 1. The development and major occurrences of sustainability milestones at Skanska in the last 10 years (based on von Schantz, 2005, 45 with additions)
1997 The toxic scandal of Hallandsåsen where Skanska is the main contractor. Sustainability
issues are being discussed, but with a focus on environmental aspects.
As a result, top management makes verbal commitments regarding ethical issues in
Skanska.
1999 An Environmental Unit is established at the main office at Skanska.
2000 The notion of sustainability is expanded within the Skanska corporation.
Benchmarking of the CSR work at Shell.
2001 The Environmental Unit is renamed as Sustainability Unit at Skanska.
A Skanska code of conduct is presented.
The asphalt cartel, where a number of construction companies were involved among
others Skanska, is exposed in media.
2002 Skanska publish their first Sustainability Report.
2003 Skanska managers participate in an educational program for employees in ethical conduct.
2005 The first ecolabel (Svanen) house is built by Skanska (Bengtsson, 2005, 12)
2006 Skanska is a part of a project that aims to develop an environmental classification of
buildings (2005-2007) in collaboration with universities and other construction actors
(www, ByggaBoDialogen 1, 2006).
EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies Vol. 12, No. 2 (2007) 9 http://ejbo.jyu.fi/
Annual Report (Internet, Skanska annual Report, 2005, 38-43), where environmental and ethical goals are presented as fi¬nancial and quality-related targets (Ibid, 7). Financial, ethical and environmental achievements and targets are integrated in the report. The social aspects of business conduct are not com¬municated in detail, only in vague phrases about their societal role: “Skanska has many roles in society – for example as a tax¬payer, an employer and a creator of infrastructure and buildings. Skanska also contributes to society by serving as an economic engine” (Internet, Skanska 3, 2005, 43).
Skanska works with “value-based leadership” which includes the involvement of the CEO, Stuart Graham. His policy state¬ments in the Sustainability Reports are perceived by internal stakeholders as supportive intentions of Skanska Code of Con¬duct (personal message, Wenblad, 2004). In the Annual Report (2005, 2-3) however, the communicated performance measures in the “out perform” program refer to the financial, bottom line.
Discussion - CSR communication in the Skanska case
A sustainability report is in itself no guarantee for a sustain¬able outcome. Critical voices will argue that “what is good for business is good for society” is not always the case (Doane, 2004). When companies like BAT, British American Tobacco, produced a sustainability report and became a part of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, it was seen as an oxymoron. Their outcome, tobacco products, in themselves are not a part of sus¬tainability. The construction industry as such will never suffer from this kind of criticism. Construction is needed as a part of a sustainability framework where the earth has to support a grow¬ing population. But, business conduct may still be criticized.
The Swedish construction sector has suffered from doubtful reputation and is repeatedly in the focus of public debates. Even people from inside of the sector are openly witnessing of poor ethical conduct (Hoffman, 2005; Nilsson, 2007). The federal branch organization in Sweden, BI, also supports this picture by their prioritized strategic goals (Internet, BI, 2004). They state that the reputation of the sector must be improved and the objective is to be regarded as a serious and competent actor in the Swedish business community. The increasing awareness of CSR should be seen as an opportunity for the sector, where all steps in the right direction will contribute to an enhanced reputation.
CSR is all about business conduct. The stakeholders’ vari¬ous experiences, of degree of met expectations, will determine the “territory”, and thus the communication platform. A lack of transparency or awareness of needs to communicate sustain¬ability issues may damage the territory, and thus the brand (Fig¬ure 2 & 3). Building a brand is a long term effort, but destroying it, by a CSR scandal, can happen overnight. The cartel incident in 2001 received a high degree of media coverage while major efforts in communicating a code of conduct at the same time received little attention. Communication of CSR does not only create awareness for CSR and support for an image or a brand, it is also a way of creating a bond between the company and its stakeholders (Maignan & Ferrell, 2004).
CSR related news that has been in focus in the press make companies work actively with these issues. In the Skanska case, they have faced two major CSR crises in the recent decades, and it is clear that media has forced Skanska to develop a more ac¬tive CSR approach. The negative attention has been so harmful for Skanska’s image that it had to be turned to something posi¬tive, a more active approach towards CSR. The primary driv¬ers for this change were outside forces, such as environmental emergencies and disagreement with societal norms, verbalized by media (Beckman, 1997). Many of the receivers of this infor¬mation, foremost external stakeholders, have little insight into industrial conditions and in actual business conduct. This gives media the role of an interpreter of “product characteristics” (Fig¬ure 3) that eventually limits the possible size of the territory (Figure 2). The true product characteristics may even be hard to evaluate for the majority of stakeholders since the outcomes, in this case constructed objects (for example a house, a bridge or a tunnel), are long term investments that require an expert to evaluate their “true functions and qualities”. When the evalua¬tions are verbalized by trustworthy ambassadors (Thorstensson, 2006), they provide grounds for generalisation and discrimina¬tion – in other words for a general picture of Skanska’s image and brand character.
Corporate legitimacy has been described as the “yardstick” for CSR (Schuman, 1995, 574). In 2001, that measure in the Skanska case would be a harsh one. The fact that their code of conduct was communicated did not reach many stakeholders – but the news of the cartel did. The experienced characteris¬tics (news) and the efforts to create an ethical profile (the code of conduct) clashed, leaving little room to build a territory as a basis for CSR values of a Skanska brand. The development of an ethical code of conduct, in the Skanska case, was more than just PR tactics to please a critical press. It refers to re-think¬ing business conduct, motivated by external pressures that were internalized promoting a search for organizational legitimacy. It remains to be seen, however, if this is a part of a more sys¬temic approach where sustainability measures are driven by in¬side forces (Richardson, 2004). One indication of such a change would be a change in policies and guidelines verbalized by the top management (Löhman & Steinholtz, 2003).
Conclusions – Brand as a CSR investment
In recent years, corporations have faced increasing CSR expec¬tations from their societal environment (Balmer & Greysner, 2006; Michael, 2003; Whitehouse, 2006). CSR refers to com¬pliance with legal obligations as well as moral rules above and beyond “business as usual”. In a search for societal acceptance and legitimacy, businesses communicate their ethical grounds for conducting business in CSR actions.
Communicating CSR requires an understanding of consum¬er insights in other words the profile. Customers may attribute value based on, for example, personal positive experiences or positive verdicts from trusted sources, the so-called ambassa¬dors. But what about CSR- values? They represent credence val¬ues that are difficult to see, measure and confirm. The credence values are founded in the corporate ethical stands. These values are based on trust, and they are sensitive to a negative verdict from, for example, media. Media’s role in relaying information is not neutral by any means. News that attracts attention will affect the territory for corporate communication. Media may take on the role as a critical screen to distinguish CSR strategies from CSR stunts, forcing corporations to communicate their ethical stands.
Communication alone will not do the trick. “Talk” and no “walk” will quickly be labelled as a green wash of the corporate image, strategic stunts, or guerrilla marketing for subtly reach¬ing consumers. If the consistency between words and action is weak it may be attributed to managerial complexities (Lindfeldt, 2006), and it limits the territory for building trust and creating a corporate image. Cause related marketing requires an under¬standing of how the brand carries values above and beyond the
EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies Vol. 12, No. 2 (2007) 10 http://ejbo.jyu.fi/
product itself. What is foretold in an annual report, a sustain¬ability report or on a corporate home page in terms of CSR ac¬tion thus becomes an important communication platform and a condition for creating a large territory to support credence val¬ues, and ultimately the grounds for creating a strong brand.
Branding is perceived as an asset, a long term investment, ex¬pressed as goodwill, loyalty, reputation, a guarantee for present and future consumer preference. Assuming that the consumer expectations of quality, usefulness, and timeliness of a prod¬uct are met, social values may presently strengthen the brand. Looking ahead, however, social values may become just as much of a “hygiene” factor as quality and design are at present. CSR will thus be taken for granted, as an institutionalized part of the corporate marketing umbrella.
Acknowledgements
Comments and suggestions from editors and reviewers are much appreciated - thank you kindly. We would also like to thank you representatives from Skanska and media for sharing facts and perceptions.
References
Apéria, T. & Back, R.(2004), Brand Relations Management, Liber, Malmö.
Arnold, D. (1993), The handbook of brand management, Pitman Publishing, London.
Balmer, J. & Greysner, S.(2006) “Corporate marketing. Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing”, Vol. 40 No.7/8, pp. 730-741.
Beckman, S. (1997) “Fyra N! Varför vi gör som vi gör” Tvärsnitt, No. 4, pp.3-11.
Bengtsson, V. (2005a) “Undviker risk till varje pris” Dagens Miljö. No. 6, pp.20-21.
Bengtsson, V. (2005b) “Skanska bygger världens första svanmärkta hus” Dagens Miljö. No.7, p12.
Best, R. J. (2004) Market-Based Management. Strategies for growing customer value and profitability (3rd ed.) International Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Charter, M. & Polonsky, M. (1999), Greeer Marketing. A global perspective on greening marketing practice. Green Leaf Publishing, Sheffield, the UK.
Davidson, L. (2004), “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities of Swedish Multinational Companies (MNCs) Contributing to Economic and Social Development in the Argentinean Society”. Masters theses, Linköping University, Sweden (available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/liu/undergraduate/abstract.xsql?dbid=2076).
Deetz, S. (1995) “Transforming communication, transforming business: Stimulating value negotiation for more responsive and responsible workplaces” International Journal of Value-Based Management, No. 8: pp. 255-278.
Denzin, N & Lincon, Y. (1994), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications Ltd., Beverly Hills, CA.
Doane, D. (2005) “Beyond corporate social responsibility: minnows, mammoths and markets”, Futures – The Journal of Forecasting Planning and Policies, Vol.37, no 2/3;. pp. 215-230.
Doane, D. (2004), Good intentions – bad outcomes? The broken promise of CSR reporting.(81-89) In: Henriques, A.& Richardson, J (Eds). The Triple Bottom Line - does it all add up? Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR, Erthscan, London.
Dowling, D. (2001), Creating Corporate Reputation. Identity, Image and Performance. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Elkinton, J. (1998), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. 2nd ed. Capstone Publishing Ltd., Oxford.
Foley, C. (2003), Corporate Social Responsibility: motivering och genomförande hos svenska storföretag illustrerad med fallstudier på Electrolux och Ericsson, Centrum för tvärvetenskaplig miljöforskning, Stockholms Universitet.
Garriga, E. & Melé, D. (2004) “Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory”, Journal of Business Ethics, No. 53, pp. 51-71.
Henriques, A.& Richardson, J (Eds). (2004), The Triple Bottom Line - does it all add up? Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR, Erthscan, London.
Hoffman, J. (2005) “Uppmuntra hederliga företag”, Svenska Dagbladet, 2005-04-14.
Hollender, J. & Fenichell, S. (2004), What matters most. How a small group of pioneers is teaching social responsibility to big business and why big business is listening. Basic Books.
Kay, M. (2006) “Strong brands and corporate brands”, European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 40 No. 7/8, pp. 742-760.
Keller, K. L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Keller, K. L. (2001) “Mastering the Marketing Communication Mix: Micro and Macro Perspectives on Integrated Marketing Communication Programs”, Journal of Marketing Management, No.17, pp. 819-847.
Kotler, P.(2000), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. & Wong, V. (1999), Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall Europe, London.
Kvale, S. (1997), Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Larsson, L. (1997), Tillämpad kommunikationsvetenskap, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Lazonick, W. & O’Sullivan, M. (2000) “Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance”, Economy and Society, Vol. 29, No.1, pp. 13-35.
Lindfeldt, L.-L. (2006) “Making sence of business ethics – About not walking the talk”, EJBO, Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol. 11: No. 1, pp. 10-16 (Available at http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol11_no1_pages_10-16.pdf).
Löhman, O. & Steinholz, D. (2003), Det ansvarsfulla företaget, Ekerlids förlag, Stockholm.
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O.C. (2004) “Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32, No.1, pp. 3-19.
Mark-Herbert, C. (2004) “Brand and image as strategic tools”, A working paper – presented but not published. Department of Economics, SLU, Uppsala.
Mbare, O. (2004) “The role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the New Economy”. EJBO, Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol. 9: No. 1 (Available at http://ejbo.jyu.fi/index.cgi?page=articles/0901_5 ).
McShane, S. L. & Von Glinow, M. A. (2003), Organizational Behaviour, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Michael, B. (2003) “Corporate social responsibility in international development: An overview and critique”. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. No.10, pp. 115-128.
Nilsson, A. (2005) “Hållbarhet morot i en ny strategi; Dyrköpt startskott. CSR-arbete bör kopplas till riskhantering – nu” Dagens Miljö. No. 6,
EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies Vol. 12, No. 2 (2007) 11 http://ejbo.jyu.fi/
pp. 10-13, 22-23.
Nilsson, M. (2007) “NCC:s nye vd skäms inte”, Svenska Dagbladet, April 7th , p. 9.
Nitsch, U. (1998) “Konsten att informera om miljön”, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Samhälls- och landskapsplanering (Societal and landscape planning), Issue 3.
Nordgren, C. (2005) “Jakt på olagliga karteller i byggbranschen i host”, Dagens Nyheter, July 22nd 2005, (DN Debatt).
Palazzo, G. & Richter, U. (2005). “CSR Business as Usual? The Case of the Tobacco Industry”. Journal of Business Ethics, No. 61, pp. 387-401.
Philipson, S. (2004), Etik och företagskultur. Att leda med värden. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Pringle, H. & Thompson, M. (1999), Brand spirit - how cause related marketing builds brands. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Richardson, J. (2004) “Accounting for Sustainability: Measuring quantities or enhancing qualities?” in: Henriques, A.& Richardson, J (Eds). The Triple Bottom Line - does it all add up? Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR, Erthscan, London. pp.34-45.
Riezebos, R. (2003), Brand Management. A theoretical and practical approach. Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow, the UK.
Ruggie, J. G. (2002) “The Theory and Practice of Learning Networks: Corporate Social Responsibility and Global Compact”, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, No. 5, pp. 27-36.
von Schantz, C. (2005) “Communication of Corporate Social Responsibility. The case of Skanska AB”, Dep. of Economics, SLU, Masters Thesis, Vol. 304, (available at http://ex-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00000573/).
Shannon, C. & Weaver, W. (1949), The mathematical theory of communication. Univ. of Illinois Press, Illinois.
Stake, R. (1994) “Case studies” in Dentzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage publications Ltd., London, pp 236-247.
Takala, T. (1996) “From Social Responsibility to Environmental Responsibility - Changes in the Finnish Business Discourse from 1970 to 1995”, EJBO, Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol.1, No.1 (Available at http://ejbo.jyu.fi/index.cgi?page=articles/0101_2 )
Thayer Robbins, P. (2001), Greening the Corporation. Management strategy and the environmental challenge. Earth Scan Publications Ltd., London.
Thorstensson, G. (2006), Människor påverkar människor. Springtime, Stockholm.
Veres, V. (2001) “Sveriges mest beundrade bolag – lönsamt samvete”, Veckans Affärer, April 9th.
Veludo-de-Oliveia, T. M (2006) “Society versus business organization: The strategic role of marketing”. EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organizational Studies, 11:1, pp. 26-29. (Available at http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol11_no1_pages_26-29.pdf)
Whitehouse, L. (2006) “Corporate Social Responsibility – Views from the Frontline”, Journal of Business Ethics, No.63, pp. 279-296.
Internet
BI, Sveriges byggindustrier (The Swedish Construction Federation), http://www.bygg.org/
1.Prioritized activities, objectives and strategies, 2004-12-04, http://www.bygg.org/prioriterade_mal.asp
ByggaBoDialogen http://www.byggabodialogen.se/EPIServer/
1. Första projektgruppsmötet. Fredagen den 25 februari hölls det första projektmötet om Miljöklassning av byggnader. 2006-10-18 http://www.byggabodialogen.se/EPIServer/templates/Page.aspx?id=2488
CSRwire, www.CSRwire.com
Corporte Social Responsibility Current headlines (2005.07.05) http://www.csrwire.com/
EU, European Union, http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm 1. Enterprise and industry, Corporate Social Responsibility. (2006-09-30) http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/csr/index.htm
Skanska, http://www.skanska.com
1. The Skanska Code of Conduct (2005.07.11) http://www.skanska.com/files/documents/pdf/code_of_conduct.pdf
2. About Skanska (2006.09.30) http://www.skanska.se/files/graphics/img_contact/organisation/rub_about_skanska.gif
3. The Annual report (2006.10.30) http://www.skanska.com/skanska/templates/page____1333.aspx
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, (WBCSD), http://www.wbcsd.ch
1. We hear about Corporate Social Responsibility. How do firms put it into practice? (2006-09-30),
2. About the WBCSD � FAQs http://www.wbcsd.ch/templates/TemplateWBCSD1/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=Mjk0&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu#2
Personal message
Wenblad, Axel
Senior Vice President, Sustainability
Skanska AB, Solna, Sverige
Personal meeting 2004-10-12
Telephone interview 2005-02-14
Authors
Mark-Herbert, Cecilia. PhD. SLU, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7013, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden. Email: cecilia.mark-herbert@ekon.slu.se.
Cecilia has been a member of the faculty since she defended her dissertation in 2002 (about R&D management focused on innovation, the development and marketing of radically new food products http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00000298 ). She has since taught and conducted research in marketing management in a sustainable development paradigm.
von Schantz, Carolina. MSc. Communication Consultant, Vretgränd 1, 753 22 Uppsala, Sweden. Email: carolina.von.schantz@gmail.com
Carolina graduated from SLU in 2005 (MSc econ.) and has since worked within in the field of communication. Being an active student lead to a key role at the Communication Office at SLU where Carolina worked with student recruitment and brand strategies. Currently, she works as a Communication Consultant in Stockholm, but has kept the interest for academic research within the field of sustainability and communication.

Posted in: Jurnal Internasional