The respondents look at CSR as beneficial for the firm, as well as the activity may be a strategic necessity. There are however differences and similarities to be found. First in this section there will be an outline of differences between the stakeholders, as well as a section visually showing the differences. Lastly, there will be an outline of differences and
similarities between the stakeholders and the CSR managers.
7.3.1 Differences and Similarities between the Stakeholders
This paper has, by using different stakeholder perspectives, explored stakeholders’ perception of a given CSR activity. From the literature, it can be said that stakeholders, in many cases, will evaluate a firm’s CSR activities. This section will explore how different stakeholders (latent, expectant and definitive) perceive a given CSR activity.
Looking at the inclusive work life activity, it can be said that the common perception among the stakeholders (latent, definitive) are that the activity is not regarded as a strategic necessity. Although the respondents believe that the firm will need to continually evaluate market and non-market factors. The perceptions regarding the activity a competitive advantage are similar. When looking at the Fairtrade and certified coffee activity, the dominant (expectant) and dependent (expectant) stakeholders perceive the activity as a strategic necessity. The demanding (latent), however, does not. The perceptions are alike when it comes to the activity in terms of competitive advantage. The importance of the firms’ values and beliefs in CSR activities are mentioned by the stakeholders within each group.
The stakeholders may evaluate the activities based on own values and interests. This is supported by (Peloza and Papania 2008). It may be said that those evaluating the activities as a source of competitive advantage may have economic preferences. Those evaluating the activities as a strategic necessity may see the need for the activity to ensure sustainability. Further, it can be said that those stakeholders dependent on profit to survive may have a different view than those concerned about sustainable development.
This paper acknowledges the fact that the differences and similarities may be due to
conditions other than the stakeholder placement. First, it can be said that the stakeholders may have different perceptions due to the nature of the two CSR activities. An inclusive work life activity may by many be perceived differently than certified coffee activities. Again, the importance of the activity in the industries can be mentioned. Second, the perceptions may differ due to the knowledge of the activities among the stakeholders. It will be reasonable to say that a professional buyer may have less knowledge than the manager of an ethical organisation. Third, the risk of revealing sensitive and classified information may also affect the information given. Lastly, the results may differ as the analysis of the placement of the stakeholders may be done differently, as the stakeholders continually can increase and
decrease its number of attributes (Mitchell, Agle et al. 1997). The stakeholder perceptions are outlined in the section below.
7.3.2 The Continuum of Stakeholders
Again, the three latent stakeholders (dormant, discretionary and demanding) do not see the CSR activity as a strategic necessity. However, the activity is seen as a source of competitive advantage. As the latent stakeholders hold one out of three attributes, their relation to the firm may be weak (Mitchell, Agle et al. 1997). This may lead to the belief that the activity should create benefits for the firm, as firms normally have profit creating aims.
The two expectant stakeholders (dominant and dependent) possess two out of three attributes. They perceive the CSR activity as a source of competitive advantage and as a strategic
necessity. It can be said that the attribute legitimacy, which both stakeholders possess, could be a possible reason for the perceptions of the activity as a necessity, and the need for the activity. It may further be said that expectant stakeholders may expect the firm to comply with different expectations, as well as create profit.
As this research only conducts the analysis of one definitive stakeholder, there will be no comparison with other definitive stakeholders. However, the definitive stakeholder possesses all three attributes. A stakeholder that holds all three attributes will be important for the firm (Mitchell, Agle et al. 1997). It can be said that such stakeholder will have knowledge about a firm’s activities and know its purpose.
The findings explained above are outlined in Figure 12. The stakeholders are, by evaluating the information given, put on the line of competitive advantage and strategic necessity.
Figure 12: The Continuum of Stakeholders (the author)
Latent (dormant) Latent (discretionary) Expectant (dominant) Expectant (dependent) Latent (demanding) Definitive Competitive Advantage Strategic Necessity
7.3.3 Differences between the CSR Managers and the Stakeholders
There are similar perceptions when it comes to the inclusive work life activity and its strategic necessity, although minor differences can be found. The same can be said regarding the activity as a source of competitive advantage. When it comes to the certified coffee and Fairtrade, the perception of the activity as a strategic necessity differ between the CSR manager and the latent stakeholder. The CSR manager’s intention is similar to the two expectant stakeholders’ perceptions. All three stakeholders and the CSR manager have the same perceptions regarding the activity as competitive advantage. Further, there are similar perceptions of the activities as rooted in the firms’ values and beliefs. The results can be seen in the figures below.
Figure 13: The CSR Congruence Model, Friele (the author)
As seen in Figure 13 and 14, it can be said that the firms’ vision is to a large extent similar to the stakeholders’ perception. The only difference when looking at the two firms is the latent stakeholder in the case of Friele. This may seem strange as the latent stakeholder (Rema 1000) had a saying in the launching of the products. Again, the use of one attribute may be a reason for the results. Further, due to the nature of the demanding stakeholder, it may be that creating profit and gain competitive advantage will be important, and it may influence the perception.
The results may be due to several reasons, however, it can be said that the two firms’ ability to have a large profile and its ways of communicating its purpose may have a huge impact on the stakeholders. The stakeholders may have become more aware of the intention of the firm, as well as the stakeholders may have more knowledge about the activities. Further, it may be that the more focus within CSR the last years have made the public more aware of CSR and its importance. This may have affected the stakeholders’ knowledge about the CSR activities.
To sum up, it can be said that the stakeholder groups will have different perceptions of the CSR activities. The latent and definitive stakeholders perceive the activities as a source of competitive advantage, whereas the expectant stakeholders perceive the activities as
competitive advantage and strategic necessity. However, the stakeholder groups have similar perceptions regarding the CSR activities along with firm values and beliefs. Lastly, the CSR managers’ intention and the stakeholders’ perception differ in some areas. The results can be seen in the revised model in the next section.