Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become one of the most prominent field of interest among companies as they are faced with demands from a number of internal and external stakeholders for greater accountability, responsibility and transparency in relation to their activities (Lockett et al. 2006; Waddock & Goggings 2011). In parallel, CSR has also gained considerable interest among management and organizational scholars (Crane et al. 2008), who argue that companies will increasingly be assessed on their social performance and their ability to provide a competitive advantage.
Accordingly, Porter and Kramer (2011: 64) propose that “the purpose of the corporation must be redefined as creating shared value, not just profit per se” thus breaking with Friedman’s (1970) neoclassical economist view of the company. The authors suggest that value creation should be the governing principle of companies’ involvement in CSR and introduce the concept of ‘Creating Shared Value’ (CSV) defined as ‘policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates’ (Porter and Kramer 2011: 66).
The CSV concept has gained a substantial and positive audience in the senior management teams of leading global companies such as Nestlé and Coca Cola and among large and small companies around the world (Porter and Kramer 2014: 149). Additionally, Porter and Kramer’s (2011) article ‘Creating Shared Value” is one of the most widely read and influential articles related to the field of CSR in recent years (Crane et al. 2014; Strand et al. 2015), although the notion of CSR as shared value was already introduced in CSR-related literature prior to the 2011 work of Porter and Kramer (e.g. Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman et al. 2004).
The impact of the shared value concept is also manifest in the cross-national diffusion of the concept. The concept has been inscribed in the official EU strategy (2011) for CSR, and in a Scandinavian context, a number of initiatives of creating shared value can also be found (Strand and Freeman 2015). In Denmark, for example, the government has promoted (explicit) strategic CSR (Ellis and Eder-Hansen 2012; Vallentin 2015) and adopted the shared value terminology in its recent CSR action plan: ‘Social responsibility is therefore about ensuring that growth and responsibility go hand in hand, creating shared value for both companies and society. This task involves the Danish business sector, the public sector, as well as civil society’ (The Danish Government 2012: 3). The government has thus adopted a business-oriented view on CSR as shared value while also calling for collaboration, partnerships and knowledge sharing as means to strengthen social responsibility which increasingly are reflected in the current practice of CSR as shared value in Danish companies (Vallentin 2015; Strand and Freeman 2015; Strand et al. 2015).
Although the discourse of CSR as shared value has been gradually incorporated and institutionalized in Denmark, the cross-national literature (e.g. Campell 2007; Matten and Moon 2008; Gjølberg 2009) indicates that there are strong cases for arguing that CSR is institutional contingent and varies between national, institutional contexts (Blindheim 2015: 56). Accordingly, scholars are increasingly focusing on how a unified institutional context influences forms of CSR (e.g. Campbell 2006; 2007; Doh & Guay 2006; Matten and Moon, 2008) and informs homogeneity and consensus around the meaning of CSR (Blindheim 2015: 57). However, the current institutional analysis of CSR does not consider that an institutional context might posses multiple and contesting perceptions (Meyer and Rowan 1977; Friedland & Alford 1991; Lounsbury 2008) of the role of business in society (Blindheim 2015). To fill this gap, Blindheim (2015) refines and complements the current institutional view on CSR by demonstrating that there are some variety and heterogeneity within a national context. Drawing on the notion of ‘institutional logic’ (Alford & Friedland 1985; 1991; Thorton 2004; Thorton & Ocasio 2008), Blindheim (2015) argues that multiple institutional logics enable actors to make sense of CSR in multiple ways. Institutional logics – and their embedded discourses – are thus ‘available to individuals, groups and organizations to further elaborate, manipulate, and use to their own advantage’ (Thorton & Ocasio 2008: 101; cited in Blindheim 2015). Following this, it can be argued that the practice of CSR as shared value in Danish companies needs to be considered as a translation process (Aguilera et al. 2007; Blindheim 2015) in which the organization and its actors might have coexisting and potentially competing logics of CSR as shared value due to different perspectives, interest and expectations. Such institutional contradictions may threaten the organizational coherence and lead to tensions between individuals or subgroups (Kraatz and Block 2008: Besharov & Smith 2010; 2012; Bjerregaard and Lauring 2013). There is, in other words, a need for research focusing on how CSR as shared value is interpreted and reconciled by the organization and its actors within a specific institutional context.
On this basis, the purpose of the paper is to critically explore how the organization and its actors approach, practice and perceive CSR as shared value. Building on the notion of institutional logic (Alford & Friedland 1985; 1991; Thorton 2004; Thorton & Ocasio 2008) and based on a longitudinal single case study of a Danish-based global dairy company’s work with malnutrition among elderly people and inpatients as an issue related to shared value creation, the paper critically explores the research question: How does a CSR frontrunner and its actors practice, articulate and experience CSR as shared value in a Danish context? Drawing on social constructivist assumptions (Berger and Luckmann 1967) emphasizing interpretation at the individual level, the analysis focuses on how the organization and its actors make sense of institutional logics via discourses and use these discourses in the construction of CSR as shared value. The study demonstrates that translating the notion of CSR as shared value in to practice poses an ongoing communicative challenge of balancing/equating multiple logics of business and logics of ethics The study provides thus empirical advances of the role of communication in bridging competing the social/economic logics of CSR as shared value thus contributing to the growing body of CSR communication literature. The paper is structured as follows: First follows a literature review accounting for the translation of CSR as shared value in the Scandinavian context. Then the conceptual framework of ‘communicative institutionalism’ (Cornelissen et al. 2015) is presented followed by a presentation of the research design, analysis and empirical insights. In conclusion, the paper discusses the managerial and practical implications.
Literature review
Neo-institutional theory has become one of the most important theoretical perspectives in management and organizational research (Greenwood, 2008) suggesting organizations are influenced by the broader institutional settings in which they operate (Greenwood et al. 2008; DiMaggio and Powell 1983). The neo-institutional perspective focuses on how organizations are influenced and structured by institutions (Dimaggio and Powell 1983) and on how organizations seek to respond to the institutionalized norms in order to gain legitimacy (Meyer and Rowan 1977).
The CSR literature has not until recently explored whether institutional processes influence the tendency for companies to behave in socially responsible ways (Campbell 2007; Gray et al. 2010; Brammer et al. 2012). However, scholars are increasingly emphasizing that CSR needs to be considered in the context in which the company operates (Halme et al. 2009; Geard 2014; Jamali & Sidani 2012; Jamali et al. 2015). Consequently, there has been a growing interest in employing neo-institutional theory to explain global convergence and why CSR is part of the business practices in almost every major country around the world globally and how and why CSR assumes different forms in different countries due to local divergence (Doh & Guay 2006; Matten and Moon 2008; Brammer et al. 2012).
In their seminal article ‘Implicit and Explicit CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Matten and Moon (2008) identify that CSR definitions and perceptions are not universal but reflect the social and institutional context in which the corporation is embedded. On the basis of Whitley’s (1997; 1998) theory of National Business Systems (NBS), Matten and Moon (2008) compare American and European companies’ CSR. The key argument is that companies operating in national institutionalized contexts characterized by the liberal market are offered clear incentives and opportunities for taking an explicit responsibility for social issues, whereas companies in national institutional contexts characterized by the coordinated marked have fewer incentives and opportunities to assume a direct, explicit responsibility for social issues (Blindheim 2015: 54). Focusing on the language that companies use in addressing their relation to society, Matten and Moon (2008) point out that companies practicing explicit CSR use the language of CSR in communicating their policies and practices to their stakeholders, whereas those practicing implicit CSR do not communicate explicitly about how societal norms and rules influence the companies (Matten and Moon, 2008: 410). Matten and Moon (2008) emphasize that although European including Scandinavian companies have traditionally adopted an implicit approach to CSR compared to American companies’ individual and explicitly formulated policies on CSR, there is no evidence that American companies are more socially responsible than European companies. On the contrary, several studies show that Scandinavian companies are ranked at the top of international lists of business ethics, transparency and accountability indicating a ‘general tendency that Scandinavia-based firms are disproportionately well represented in the CSR and sustainability rankings when compared to firms in the United States’ (Strand et al. 2015: 5). This has led to a considerable academic interest in the Scandinavian context (e.g. Midttun et al. 2006; Morsing et al. 2007; Gjølberg 2009; Vallentin 2015; Strand and Freeman 2015; Strand et al. 2015) which is considered a promising research field for exploring company-stakeholder cooperation and examples of creating shared value that focus on ‘cooperative advantages’ rather than competitive advantages (Strand and Freeman 2015: 82).
In their article ‘Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia’, Strand and Freeman (2015) seek to provide evidence for a particular Scandinavian way of constructing and practicing CSR as shared value. They argue that the notion of CSR as shared value is in fact a Scandinavian concept by stressing the links between creating shared value and stakeholder theory, coupled with the fundamental Scandinavian contribution to stakeholder theory that emphasizes the importance of an ‘outside-in perspective’ (Strand et. al. 2015: 9). An outside-in perspective takes its point of departure in the world’s needs and consider thus how the company can fulfill these needs (bid.)
Strand et al. (2015) highlight a number of institutional and cultural factors emphasizing the strong traditions of stakeholder engagement that influence the practice of CSR as shared value in Scandinavian companies. Companies originating from Scandinavian countries have several political and economic features in common such as a consensual political culture and a strong socio-democratic welfare state with consensus-corporatist traditions and egalitarian and participatory values (Gjolberg 2009; Halme et al. 2009; Carson et al. 2015; Strand et al. 2015). These traditions and values are to a certain extent rooted in the engaging and cooperative ‘Scandinavian management’ approach and well-functioning partnerships between companies, governments and labor organizations (Greenness 2003; Morsing et al. 2007; Carson et al. 2015; Strand et al. 2015). In recent years, Scandinavian governments have increasingly encouraged corporations to initiate CSR activities and take part in areas and problems that were previously considered as responsibilities of the state (Morsing 2011; Strand et al. 2015; Vallentin 2015). This approach is associated with the discussion regarding the movement from implicit CSR toward explicit CSR among Scandinavian companies (Strand et al. 2015: 10).
Traditionally, the Scandinavian countries have represented an implicit CSR approach (cf. Matten and Moon 2008), mainly because of their high level of regulation and institutional demands (Carson et al. 2015). However, Scandinavian companies are increasingly adopting an explicit approach to CSR in which they are gradually becoming more expressive regarding social and environmental issues (Matten and Moon, 2008; Strand 2013; Ihlen and & Høivik 2015; Carson et al. 2015). Carson et al. (2015:19) argue that Scandinavian companies’ move towards a more explicit approach, in which they explicate their engagement in CSR as shared value as an initiative separate from the state, can be considered as ‘a strategic tool for enhancing corporate reputation and public trust in the corporation in the Scandinavian context’ (Carson et al. 2015: 19). Although the CSR language of Scandinavian companies becomes increasingly similar to that of U.S. companies, the perceptions and practices of the organization and its actors are not accordingly similar (Carson et al. 2015: 21). Consequently, the present study seeks to explain how CSR ass shared value is in interpreted and practiced by a Danish CSR frontrunner and its actors.
Conceptual background:
The communicative construction of institutional logics
While scholars are increasingly focusing on the institutional mechanisms of CSR (e.g. Campell 2007; Matten and Moon 2008; Brammer et al. 2012) and on the role of institutional work in driving or opposing CSR initiatives, policies and practices (e.g. Slager et al. 2012), limited research has focused on the role of communication in managing the coexisting and potentially competing institutional logics of CSR among organizational stakeholders (Crane and Glozer 2016: XX).
While institutions are considered as ideas, concepts, methods, things or practices (norms) that become institutionalized (Tolbert and Zucker 1983: 22) and taken for granted (Berger and Luckman 1966: 71), institutional logics indicate what kind of behavior to expect from one another given a specific institutional order (Blindheim 2015: 59). The notion of institutional logics can be defined as “the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality” (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999: 804). Thus, the practices of actors are embedded in institutional logics that serve as tools for influencing decisions, justifying activities or advocating for changes in a contested field (McPherson and Sauder 2013). In other words, institutional logics – and their embedded discourses – are thus ‘available to the organization and its actors to further elaborate, manipulate, and use to their own advantage’ (Thorton & Ocasio 2008: 101) in order to achieve given goals.
The coexistence of multiple institutional logics of CSR as shared value can thus be both reinforcing and conflicting depending on how the organization and its actors manage and combine them in everyday practice calling for an approach that integrate the macro and micro level of analysis (Cornelissen 2015: 21-22).
In their recent article ‘Putting Communication Front and Center in Institutional Theory and Analysis’, Cornelissen et al. (2015) present the theoretical approach of ‘communicative institutionalism’ (Cornelissen et al. 2015: 14). Rather than considering institutions at a different level of analysis and separate from acts and practices of discourse and communication, the authors focus on the communicative constitution, maintenance and transformation of institutions (ibid.) considering institutions as negotiated, interpreted and enacted among interacting actors (McPherson and Sauder 2013; Cornelissen et al. 2015). Accordingly, it is argued that actors make sense of institutional logics via discourses and use these discourses in their interactions (Cornelissen et al. 2015: 22). Drawing on the notion of ‘communicative institutionalism’ (Cornelissen et al. 2015), it can be argued that a discourse-based understanding may enable a nuanced understanding of the ambiguity and contradiction that characterized the institutional logics of CSR as shared value. The following sections demonstrate the potential of this approach in illuminating how a CSR frontrunner organization and its actors approach, practice and perceive CSR as shared value.