1    

A case study of SEB’s CSR

communication How does SEB communicate its CSR strategy to its

stakeholders and how does the communication style differ

between various stakeholders?

Josefine Coster and Stina Ahnlid

 

 

Stockholm Business School

Bachelor’s Degree Thesis 15 HE credits

Subject: Business Administration

Spring semester 2014

Supervisor: Natalia Tolstikova

 

2    

 

Abstract:

The aim of the thesis has been to investigate the different communication methods to different

stakeholders in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR). A case study has been

conducted on the Swedish bank Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB) to explore the

difference in communication strategies to various stakeholders and to see how SEB

communicate their CSR work. The data was collected through SEB’s Sustainability report,

Code of Conduct, group web page and an interview with Elisabet Linge-Bergman, who is the

senior communication manager at SEB. The framework used to analyze the data was taken

from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013) including three communication strategies called

informational, persuasive and dialog strategy. The framework is inspired by stakeholder

theory. The key findings are that SEB implements all three communication strategies;

however, the persuasive strategy is implemented most. Additionally, SEB uses different

communication strategies to different stakeholders and they reserve the dialogical

communication to only employees and shareholders.

Keywords:  CSR, Communication, Stakeholders, Informational strategy,

Persuasive strategy, Dialog strategy  

Word  count: 15 188 (excluding abstract, appendix and bibliography)

3    

Table  of  Contents  

1.  Introduction  ........................................................................................................................................  5  

1.1  Background  ....................................................................................................................................  5  

1.2  Problematization  ...........................................................................................................................  7  

1.3  Aim  and  research  question  ............................................................................................................  7  

1.4  Relevance  ......................................................................................................................................  8  

1.5  Outline  ...........................................................................................................................................  9  

2.  Literature  review  and  theory  discussion  ...........................................................................................  10  

2.1  Literature  review  .........................................................................................................................  10  

2.1.1  CSR  in  the  field  of  communication  .......................................................................................  10  

2.1.2  CSR  communication  in  relation  to  stakeholder  theory  ........................................................  11  

2.2  Theoretical  tools  ..........................................................................................................................  13  

2.2.1  Informational  strategy  ..........................................................................................................  13  

2.2.2  Persuasive  strategy  ..............................................................................................................  14  

2.2.3  Dialog  strategy  ......................................................................................................................  15  

2.3  Summary  .....................................................................................................................................  15  

3.  Methodology  .....................................................................................................................................  17  

3.1  Philosophical  and  methodological  approach  ..............................................................................  17  

3.2  Research  method  ........................................................................................................................  18  

3.3  Case  selection  ..............................................................................................................................  19  

3.4  Data  .............................................................................................................................................  20  

3.4.1  Sustainability  report  .............................................................................................................  20  

3.4.2  Web  page  .............................................................................................................................  20  

3.4.3  Code  of  Conduct  ...................................................................................................................  21  

3.4.4  Interview  ..............................................................................................................................  21  

3.5  Coding  guide  and  data  analysis  ...................................................................................................  22  

3.5.1  Coding  schedule  ...................................................................................................................  23  

3.6  Validity  and  reliability  ..................................................................................................................  24  

3.7  Limitations  ...................................................................................................................................  25  

3.8  Research  ethics  ............................................................................................................................  25  

4.  Empirical  data  and  analysis  ...............................................................................................................  26  

4.1  SEB’s  2013  Sustainability  report  ..................................................................................................  26  

4.1.1  Informational  ........................................................................................................................  26  

4.1.2  Persuasive  ............................................................................................................................  27  

4    

4.1.3  Dialogical  ..............................................................................................................................  30  

4.2  SEB’s  sustainability  web  page  ......................................................................................................  32  

4.2.1  Informational  ........................................................................................................................  32  

4.2.2  Persuasive  ............................................................................................................................  33  

4.2.3  Dialogical  ..............................................................................................................................  34  

4.3  SEB’s  Code  of  Conduct  ................................................................................................................  35  

4.3.1  Informational  ........................................................................................................................  35  

4.3.2  Persuasive  ............................................................................................................................  35  

4.3.3  Dialogical  ..............................................................................................................................  36  

4.4  Interview  with  Elisabet  Linge-­‐Bergman,  Senior  Communication  Manager  at  SEB  ......................  36  

4.5  How  the  communication  strategy  differs  between  stakeholders  ...............................................  41  

5.  Discussion  ..........................................................................................................................................  44  

6.  Conclusion  .........................................................................................................................................  48  

7.  Appendix  ...........................................................................................................................................  50  

7.1  Interview  guide  ............................................................................................................................  50  

7.2  Summarizing  table  of  findings  regarding  how  the  communication  strategy  differs  between  stakeholders  ......................................................................................................................................  52  

7.3  Summary  of  interview  (in  Swedish)  .............................................................................................  53  

8.  Bibliography  ......................................................................................................................................  59  

 

5    

 

1.  Introduction      

This chapter introduces the background of the thesis, explains the phenomenon and relevant

definitions, followed by the problematization, aim and research question. This leads the way

to the relevance of the thesis, ending with an outline of the study.

1.1  Background  

“Corporate social responsibility is management of stakeholder concern for responsible and

irresponsible acts related to environmental, ethical and social phenomena in a way that creates

corporate benefit.” (Gronhaug et al., 2008:931). As indicated by the definition, the

stakeholder perspective is an important concept in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Werther and Chandler (2010) even state that CSR is a strategy to address the relationship with

stakeholders. Interest in CSR has recently increased because of elevated recognition from

scholars, larger amount of conferences around the world and a growing number of businesses

that publish sustainability reports (van Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2008). Some elements that

have led to the increase of interest in CSR are the more pressing questions relating to

globalization such as environmental protection, human resource management, and health and

safety questions (Industry Canada, 2012). Other aspects include intergovernmental bodies that

influence organizations to act more sustainable, the rise in communication technology as well

as awareness and pressure from consumers and investors (ibid).

It is shown that the expectations on corporations have changed from solely focusing on profit

to including CSR (Cornelissen, 2011). Moreover, a central characteristic of CSR is the

interaction of the business organization’s role in, and responsibility to society (Trapp, 2013).

Because of the organization’s obligation to society at large, CSR strategy making involves the

evaluation of what others require and expect of the business (ibid), which has been referred to

as stakeholder management in previous literature (Manetti, 2011; Werther and Chandler,

2010).

6    

The stakeholder perspective is one of the main themes of this essay and through a qualitative

in-depth case study this thesis intends to gain a broader perspective on how contemporary

companies communicate their CSR effort to different stakeholders. According to Freeman,

the “stakeholder view of the firm” defines stakeholders as “any group or individual who can

affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives” (1984: 26). To study CSR

communication to different stakeholders the Swedish bank Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken

AB (SEB) has been the unit of analysis. Therefore, the stakeholder definition used in this

essay is implemented by SEB that perceive customers, employees, shareholders, government,

suppliers and business partners, and civil society organizations as its stakeholders

(Sustainability Report, 2013: 10).

Furthermore, this thesis evaluates the extent to which CSR communication is managed in

practice and whether those practices reflect the ideal conceptualizations of CSR

communication found in previous research. The ideal CSR communication strategy presented

later in the literature review reveals that dialogs between companies and stakeholders, where

stakeholders can to some degree influence the CSR strategy making is the most successful

strategy (Cornelissen, 2011). This is because it demonstrates legitimacy towards stakeholders

(ibid). In other words, a successful business is one that has worked out the best ways of

developing and nurturing stakeholder relations, responding to stakeholder anticipations and

taking advantage of such opportunity in community involvement programs. These actions

mutually support the society and the organizations’ business goals (ibid).

Contemporary studies focus on the importance of managers to actively engage with

stakeholders and include them in company decision-making (Trapp, 2013). To see how SEB

addresses different stakeholders in their CSR strategy and how a strategic CSR

communication typology is implemented, a framework deriving from Cornelissen (2011) and

Trapp (2013) has been applied. The typology includes the three dimensions of informational,

persuasive and dialog strategies in marketing communication (Cornelissen, 2011). Firstly, the

informational strategy consists of simply informing stakeholders about something. Secondly,

the persuasive strategy regards communication that tries to change stakeholders’ knowledge

to enhance the company image (ibid). Thirdly, the dialog strategy includes the dynamic

involvement of stakeholders in the company’s strategic agenda (Trapp, 2013). This typology

increases the understanding of how SEB communicate with its different stakeholders and to

improve the knowledge of how close reality is to theory.

7    

1.2  Problematization      

In recent years the communication of CSR issues has risen intensely and some studies suggest

that nearly every big corporation publicly communicate their CSR work (Birth et al., 2008;

Borglund et al, 2008). Even though the trend is rapidly growing, little has been researched

about the concrete and systematic implementation of how corporations communicate CSR

efforts (Maignan et al., 2005). Previously, a lot of normative and theoretical work has

involved the discussion of ideal methods to stakeholder management and strategy formation,

although, relatively little research has been done on the extent to which current companies use

these theoretical guidelines (Trapp, 2013). Moreover, there seems to be a mismatch between

theory and practice with regards to CSR communication (ibid). A research gap exists because

of the lack of a common understanding and agreement within CSR communication

(Frostenson et al., 2011). Therefore, this thesis intends to explore more about how CSR

strategies are managed and communicated in reality.

 

1.3  Aim  and  research  question    

In trying to understand the emerging trend of CSR communication this thesis aims at gaining

a deeper understanding of how CSR communication works in practice with a focus on

different stakeholders. Therefore, the thesis compares practice with theory, seeing whether

SEB follows the typology deriving from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013). CSR has been

established as a major advertising theme in companies’ communication mix and they are

increasingly searching for powerful links to attract the consumers’ attention (Mögele and

Tropp, 2010). Thus, it is important to understand how CSR communication works in practice;

therefore the research question is as follows:

How does SEB communicate its CSR-strategy to its stakeholders and how does the

communication style differ between various stakeholders?

 

To answer the research question the thesis analyzes SEB’s CSR communication and which

communication strategies they are using. To reach a triangulated evidence basis their

8    

Sustainability report from 2013, Code of Conduct from 2012 and group Internet web page

from 2014 have been studied. Also, a semi-structured interview with one of the

communication managers at SEB has been conducted. In addition, the research has been

guided by stakeholder theory and the three communication strategies of informational,

persuasive and dialog communication to facilitate the understanding of SEB’s CSR

communication in relation to their stakeholders.

1.4  Relevance    

CSR communication is of high relevance in today’s society because of the significant increase

of CSR engagement during the latest decade (Mögele and Tropp, 2010). Limited research

exists on how CSR is communicated in practice and how it differs depending on stakeholders,

hence; it is important to gain insights into this phenomenon. Moreover, Gronhaug et al.

(2008) call for more research within CSR including a broader stakeholder perspective i.e.

including more stakeholder groups.

The stakeholder perspective is relevant since stakeholders are incorporated into the concept of

CSR, making it essential when researching CSR communication. In addition, contributions of

how companies communicate to different stakeholders is important to address to see whether

they manage their CSR communication in a, according to academia, successful manner

(Trapp, 2013). This thesis is academically important since researchers can see whether

stakeholder theory is applicable to reality or if it only is a utopian state not applicable for

organizations. Also, the study suggests relevance to communication managers as it describes

different communication strategies and how they best should be managed. The study

contributes to the field of communication, CSR and stakeholder theory, strengthening the

knowledge of the relationship between CSR communication and stakeholders.

The societal relevance of this thesis is that if corporations do not follow best practice and

suggestions from academia it could negatively influence society, especially when it comes to

questions regarding CSR where improvement of society is central. Additionally, in CSR it is

fundamental to navigate and include stakeholder concerns’ (Trapp, 2013). From the following

background, this thesis’ goal is to describe the current state of SEB’s CSR communication,

with a focus on different stakeholders, and to see if there is a mismatch between theory and

9    

practice.

 

1.5  Outline    

The ensuing section reviews previous literature in order to set the scene and context of the

thesis. It also describes the theoretical framework and tools that have been used for analyzing

and guiding the empirical data. The next section focuses on the method and methodology of

the research, describing potential shortcomings of the study, followed by the fourth section

including the empirical data together with the analysis. The succeeding chapter includes a

discussion around the data and clarifies possible findings. The final section summarizes the

research, concludes the findings and stresses the limitations of the study. Additionally, an

appendix and bibliography can be found after the final section.

   

10    

2.  Literature  review  and  theory  discussion    

This chapter begins with the literature review including important previous findings about

CSR in the field of communication and in the field of stakeholder theory. The second part of

this chapter includes a theory discussion focusing on a framework deriving from Cornelissen

(2011) and Trapp (2013) stressing three communication strategies called informational,

persuasive and dialog strategy. Finally, a summary is presented with the most central aspects

of this chapter.

 

2.1  Literature  review      

Previous studies have mainly treated CSR as a corporate issue including research from a

management perspective (Öberseder et al., 2013). Scholars have discussed how corporations

best can respond to different demands from external stakeholders, which CSR initiatives that

enhance corporate performance, and why companies are engaged in CSR (Basu and Palazzo,

2008). Frequently, arguments used in previous literature have derived from stakeholder theory

trying to conclude whom the companies are responsible for (Öberseder et al., 2013). It is clear

that previous research has been spread within different dimensions of management focusing

less on the communication perspective.

2.1.1  CSR  in  the  field  of  communication    

 

Within communication literature studies, significant fragmentation can be observed when

trying to reach the most relevant dimensions of CSR to investigate. To address this, Gronhaug

et al. (2008) made a study summarizing all CSR studies from 1995-2005 taken from a

marketing context. In their study, Gronhaug et al. (2008) critically assessed the

implementation of CSR in scholarly marketing literature. The aim was to develop a summary

of the contemporary status of the theory of CSR, also exploring how the marketing discipline

has addressed CSR. Methodically 54 articles in principal marketing journals were analyzed in

how the articles had conducted research on sustainable marketing. The findings of the study

was that a broadened perspective on empirical research to address CSR was needed to expand

the focus beyond consumers (ibid); hence, suggesting studies including all stakeholders.

11    

Additionally, the authors called for a more holistic perspective when addressing CSR in

research as well as more of exploratory oriented empirical studies (ibid).

Furthermore, researchers have expanded CSR within marketing trying to gain a broader

picture of the phenomena. For example, Maignan and Ferrell (2005) made a conceptualization

of CSR emphasizing the role and possible influence of the marketing discipline. They

employed existing knowledge on CSR orientation in marketing to support a methodology,

which could be used when implementing a well-integrated CSR program. They also proposed

a framework, inspired by stakeholder theory, illustrating CSR initiatives as an action to

undertake and display consistency to both organizational and stakeholder norms. Moreover,

they discuss how CSR initiatives should be managed to meet or exceed stakeholder norms.

Maignan and Ferrell (2005), argue that businesses will engage in CSR-behavior when the

presence of stakeholder power and cooperation with them is high. In accordance, the study

conducted by Gronhaug et al. (2008) Maignan and Ferrell (2005) imply that, since their

research is conceptual, future empirical research is needed.

2.1.2  CSR  communication  in  relation  to  stakeholder  theory  

 

Communication literature agrees about the mechanism through which dialogs can create value

(Flick, 1998; Isaacs, 1993). Dialogs spur the learning process as well as creativity and

innovation (van Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2008). To distinguish between different degrees of

stakeholder engagement, a three-fold typology has been developed by Cornelissen (2011).

The typology derives from stakeholder theory and includes the three topics of informational,

persuasive and dialog strategies in CSR communication (ibid). Most managers’ approach to

stakeholder communication tends to be based on the model of strategic persuasion rather than

on the dialogical communication (ibid). This typology has been widely accepted and used

within academia (Werther and Chandler, 2010; Capriotti, 2011; Trapp, 2013).

 

Inspired by Cornelissen’s (2011) typology for communication strategies, Trapp (2013) has

conducted research with the aim of understanding how stakeholders influence the creation of

CSR strategy to enable evaluating the extent to which the theory of stakeholder management

is applicable to real life. Trapp (2013), along with many other scholars (Werther and

Chandler, 2010; Capriotti, 2011; Cornelissen, 2011) stress the common notion of CSR

including the relationship between the company and its stakeholders. Trapp (2013) also

12    

identifies the common contemporary view that managers should move beyond simply being

aware of stakeholder expectations and wishes and instead actively engage with stakeholders

and involve them in company decision-making. Van Huijstee and Glasbergen’s (2008)

findings also demonstrate that dialog between stakeholders and the company improves the

company’s CSR efforts and sustainability problems related to their business because of

mutual learning.

Although Trapp (2013) shows that there is an agreement in contemporary literature that

engaging stakeholders in decision-making processes is more beneficial than simply informing

or persuading them, she investigates whether managers view their actual practices as

reflecting this ideal. Through a quantitative and empirical study consisting of 16 structured

interviews with CSR managers of large Danish companies, Trapp concludes that despite

theories increasingly point towards the importance of stakeholder influence on CSR strategy

through means of collaboration (dialogical communication), CSR managers’ view of their

interaction with stakeholders stress that real life practice does not follow the theory of

stakeholder management. Instead she indicates that managers primarily view themselves as

listeners who seek stakeholder input on the CSR agenda, but who ultimately form the strategy

independently (persuasive communication). However, findings only involve large Danish

front-runner companies, suggesting further research in other contexts. Cornelissen (2011) and

Trapp’s (2013) research are in agreement with each other and both contribute to the field of

CSR communication, yet in different ways. Cornelissen’s (2011) focus is mostly on the

theoretical side of the debate meanwhile Trapp’s (2013) is mainly on the practical side.

Furthermore, Frostenson et al. (2011), similarly to Trapp, use stakeholder theory to compare

CSR communication in parent companies with their subsidiaries. Frostenson et al. (2011)

focus on the phenomenon called the “filtration effect”, which implies empirically that there is

less CSR communication at the subsidiary level compared to the parent level. The study

found a strong filtration effect when covering Sweden’s 206 largest retail firms. For example,

58 percent of the parent companies communicated all topics including environmental, ethical,

social and philanthropic while only three percent of their subsidiaries communicated on all

four topics. According to Frostenson et al. (2011) this implies that corporations consciously

organize CSR communication that involves attention to particular stakeholder groups. This

suggests that CSR communication changes depending on the stakeholder group the

communication is intended to. It is a problem that CSR communication does not “trickle-

13    

down” to subsidiary level since customers are a particular stakeholder group of utmost

importance for the core business and without the trickle-down effect they will miss the CSR

communication (ibid). In disagreement with Gronhaug et al. (2008), Frostenson et al. (2011)

finds that CSR strategies do not include customers to a large extent.

 

2.2  Theoretical  tools    

Stakeholder theory is relevant to this study as previous research points towards corporate

communications main purpose being, both in theory and practice to manage the relationship

between stakeholders and the business (Trapp, 2013; Cornelissen, 2011; van Huijstee and

Glasbergen, 2008). The stakeholder theory is a conceptual framework of business ethics

together with organizational management, which point towards moral and ethical values in

the management of the business (Freeman, 1984). It focuses on how companies’ best can

satisfy the interests of its stakeholders (ibid).

The theoretical framework implemented in this essay mainly derives from Cornelissen (2011)

and Trapp (2013). As mentioned previously, they identify three communication strategies for

addressing stakeholder relationships: informational strategy, persuasive strategy and dialog

strategy. Since the typology is implemented in many previous studies and as it has been

widely accepted in academia (Werther and Chandler, 2010; Capriotti, 2011; Trapp, 2013), it

is a suitable framework for this thesis. To understand the theoretical concept, further

elaboration on the theoretical framework is presented below.

2.2.1  Informational  strategy  

 

The informational strategy is essentially about informing the stakeholders about something

and making relevant information available to stakeholders (Cornelissen, 2011). This can be

done through web pages, newsletters and reports, which in turn might generate awareness,

and it might even create an understanding of the reasons for these decisions (ibid). Trapp

(2013) also differentiates this strategy as a one-way communication where the company only

communicates its information and view of the issues, without interacting with and involving

the stakeholders. Here focus lies on presenting facts and communicating to receive continued

support. Moreover, the strategy neither attempts collection of feedback from stakeholders nor

14    

includes listening to stakeholders’ views. With the informational strategy the aim is to make

information available to stakeholders and to receive continued support from them (ibid).

According to the theoretical logic described above, SEB might communicate in an

informational manner indicating that they might push information through newsletters, blogs

and other documents. Additionally, the information would be objective and factual, stating

what has been done. However, according to the informational strategy SEB would not be

expected to engage in any dialog together with stakeholders. The purpose of the strategy

would be solely to inform stakeholders of various CSR related issues that SEB is concerned

with.

2.2.2  Persuasive  strategy  

 

The persuasive strategy tries to persuade and educate stakeholders that the company is

legitimate through campaigns, meetings and discussions with stakeholders (Cornelissen,

2011). It also tries to change stakeholders’ knowledge and perceptions to suit the company’s

view (ibid). Additionally, through marketing campaigns the company tries to sell their image

in a favorable manner, selling the appropriateness of their values and decisions (ibid). The

persuasive strategy is a two-way communication where the company engages in discussions

with stakeholders to receive feedback to gain valuable performance evaluations (Trapp,

2013). With this strategy the main objective is to persuade stakeholders of the worthiness of

the businesses decisions and actions (ibid). Even though some level of integration is present

the communication puts focus on listening rather than acting upon the feedback.

Considering the theoretical logic of the persuasive strategy, SEB would be expected to engage

in some type of interactive activities and discussions with stakeholders. They might

communicate their CSR work in an encouraging and persuasive manner, indicating that they

wish to influence their stakeholders into believing that SEB’s CSR approach is favorable.

Moreover, SEB might employ educational CSR campaigns seeking to teach and coerce

stakeholders into regarding that their business is ethically, socially and environmentally

friendly. The degree of feedback and two-way communication would not influence any

organizational or strategy changes, it would rather influence change in the communication

and branding of SEB.

15    

2.2.3  Dialog  strategy  

 

With dialog strategy, the organization and stakeholders have a high level of interaction where

they can exchange ideas and opinions (Cornelissen, 2011). The company consults the

stakeholders during decision-making processes and they engage in negotiations to reach

mutual agreements. The communication should be two-way and there should be a degree of

rich exchange (called rich two-way communication) between the company and its

stakeholders, where immediate and personal discussions are deployed (ibid). Trapp (2013)

suggest that stakeholders are invited to give suggestions on the company’s CSR efforts. In

addition, this strategy includes giving stakeholders the ability to directly influence the

decision-making process (ibid). As mentioned earlier, previous research stress that companies

should implement this dialogical strategy when deciding upon CSR strategies and thus also in

their CSR communication, as it is seen as the most successful strategy (Trapp, 2013).

However, most companies approach to stakeholder communication is likely to be more

persuasive rather than dialogical (Cornelissen, 2011). It could be difficult for companies to

meet the democratic conditions of the dialog strategy, giving up some of their decision-

making autonomy (ibid). Nevertheless, successful CSR-programs should reflect stakeholder

expectations and preferences for corporate behavior and when using the dialog strategy these

preferences are better reached according to Trapp (2013).

Given the theoretical logic discussed above, SEB would suggestively communicate with

stakeholders in a very integrative way e.g. hosting events where stakeholder can join in

discussions and conversations regarding CSR decisions. Also, SEB would provide means for

stakeholders to express their opinions and give feedback to reach mutual agreements.

Moreover, all communication might not only be positive and SEB may communicate issues

and obstacles that they face within CSR.

 

2.3  Summary    

To summarize, previous literature has focused on CSR-strategies from a managerial

perspective (Öberseder et al, 2013) and have mainly focused on why companies conduct CSR

and to whom they are responsible when conducting CSR (Basu and Palazzo, 2008).

Moreover, Maignan and Ferrell (2005) argue that businesses engage in CSR-behavior when

the presence of stakeholder power and cooperation is high. In disagreement, Trapp’s (2013)

16    

findings show that, even though, previous studies indicate that the dialog strategy is the most

effective with regards to CSR communication, companies still tend to implement the

persuasive strategy i.e. not including stakeholders when deciding CSR strategies. Thus,

indicating that CSR initiatives can exist even though stakeholder power is low. In addition,

Frostenson et al (2011) stress the presence of a “filtration effect”, meaning that it is mostly the

parent company that communicates on CSR issues and even more, they found a great

difference in the communication on CSR depending on which stakeholder group the

communication was intended to reach.

Considering these findings, it is appropriate to further research CSR communication in a

stakeholder context, discovering the difference in the communication depending on the

intended stakeholder group. Likewise, it is important to understand the difference between the

three communication strategies: informational, persuasive and dialogic in practice and with

regards to various stakeholders, since Trapp (2013) has identified a potential mismatch

between theory and practice in this field. As previous literature shows, this theoretical

framework is relevant as it is commonly accepted and implemented in academia (Werther and

Chandler, 2010; Capriotti, 2011; Trapp, 2013).

   

17    

3.  Methodology      

This chapter begins with describing which research paradigm the study takes its base from.

The following section presents the research method the study has adopted and how the

empirical data was collected and analyzed. The chapter concludes with addressing some

critical aspects of the implemented method as well as the research ethics.

 

3.1  Philosophical  and  methodological  approach    

 It is important to consider the style of reasoning behind a research (Bryman, 2008). The style

of reasoning includes epistemology and ontology. Epistemology decides what is seen as true

and acceptable knowledge and ontology determines what is real and how the world is

perceived (ibid); therefore, one’s position will affect and determine the entire research design

and project. One must also consider the relationship between theory and research (ibid).

Regarding epistemology, the main views are positivism and interpretivism (Bryman, 2008).

Positivism concerns the quest for objective knowledge and seeks correlations and observable

facts (ibid). Meanwhile, interpretivists seek subjective knowledge and facilitate understanding

(ibid). A positivist approach begins with a clear theoretical focus and retains a high degree of

control over the research process compared to the interpretivist approach (ibid). As this study

is driven by theory, it takes on the positivistic approach, and it aims to provide objective

knowledge of how SEB communicates its CSR strategy to different stakeholders and the

difference in communication style between various stakeholder groups.

Concerning ontology there are two positions: objectivism and constructionism (Bryman,

2008). Objectivism believes that facts and meanings exist independently of social actors

(ibid). The belief that knowledge is based on previous personal experience and that the world

constantly is changing is a constructivist idea (Pouliot, 2007). In comparison to

constructivism, objectivism holds that the logical construction of theories is based on concrete

empirical facts (ibid). This thesis takes the ontological position of objectivism because data

and facts are used independently of social actors. However, full objectivism is not possible

since data from an interview is studied and there is always social interaction during a semi-

18    

structured interview. Despite the small social interaction the overall dominating standpoint is

objectivist.

To understand the relationship between theory and research, one must consider if the aim is to

develop a theory (inductive) or to test a theory (deductive) (Bryman, 2008). In inductive

studies, the theory is the outcome of the research; meanwhile, in deductive studies theory

guides the research (ibid). This thesis takes a deductive approach as it implements a

predetermined theory to analyze the data. Even though, the research does not include either

hypothesis or aims to test the theory it is more similar to the deductive style as it is guided by

an established theory. The study applies theory to practice to see how well the theory is

implemented in real life, indicating a deductive approach.

Furthermore, this thesis uses a positivist, objective and deductive approach with qualitative

data. To be able to gain a deeper and more exhaustive understanding of SEB’s CSR

communication strategy qualitative data was used. Qualitative data is most suited for this

thesis since it helps explore the phenomena of SEB’s CSR communication in relation to

various stakeholders (Farquhar, 2012). Conjointly, qualitative research commonly put

emphasis on words rather than numbers (Bryman, 2008). As the analysis is based on a

predetermined theory and the question is to research how SEB is communicating CSR-

strategy, and how the style differs between various stakeholders, the quantitative focus on

experiments and numbers would not generate the required data. Essential to this thesis is

extensive data regarding what SEB’s CSR communication looks like in practice, to enable

comparison between theory and practice. Implementing a qualitative approach instead of a

quantitative gives less control over the context (Bryman, 2008); however, since the aim is to

see how SEB is communicating on CSR a qualitative approach is more appropriate.

 

3.2  Research  method  

The thesis is an empirical single case study of SEB’s CSR communication. This approach is

fitting since it tries to develop intensive insights in a flexible manner (Farquhar, 2012). Also,

studying CSR communication in a contemporary context could be seen as very complex

making it, according to Farquhar (2012), suitable for the case study method. The study does

not control the context and it focuses on exploring and understanding the CSR

19    

communication of SEB to its stakeholders making the case study design relevant (ibid).

3.3  Case  selection    

The selected case for this thesis is the Swedish bank SEB. SEB is today one of the leading

corporate and investment banks in the Nordic countries. SEB has about 16 000 employees

around the world and in 2013 SEB had a net profit of 18,127 million SEK (SEB, 2014).

To increase the chance of analyzing a data-rich and good practice case, Sweden was selected

as the context for the study. Since, Swedish companies are among the best in the world in the

field of CSR and the Swedish governmental encouragement to follow CSR guidelines

(Björling, 2010) there is a greater possibility of finding companies that engage in well-defined

CSR strategies and communication. Hence, Sweden was a good context for the study.

Benefits of having a good practice case is that it increases the chance of finding interesting

and possible relationships. It is equally important that the selected case has a proper and well-

elaborated CSR communication, as findings might otherwise be irrelevant.

The banking sector was chosen because it plays an important function in economic

development as it can increase the external benefits to society (Levine, 2005; Beck et al.,

2010). As the banking sector is relatively well scrutinized (Pérez et al, 2012) the possibility of

the sector having a well-established CSR communication is great; hence, it is a suitable sector

for studying CSR communication.

Additionally, SEB was chosen since the company’s CSR strategy has gained positive

attention by the media (Borglund, 2012; Markow and Bönnelyche, 2013) hence; their CSR

communication should be well-developed and thoroughly managed. The case selection of

SEB is appropriate since it has provided saturated data for the research question to be

answered. Further research can investigate the possible findings with random cases to see if

there indeed is a connection.

20    

3.4  Data    

The data has been collected from SEB’s Sustainability report (2013), Code of Conduct

(2012), group web page (April, 2014) and a semi-structured interview with a communication

manager at SEB. All data has been collected by the authors and have been examined for both

explicit and implicit references of how SEB address different stakeholders in their CSR work

and to describe their CSR communication style. The chosen documents are authentic and

representative, however, regarding credibility some biases may be suggested since all

document are directly written by SEB. Yet, the Sustainability report (2013) is audited and

assured by PwC indicating that the calculations and numbers in the report is presented in a

trustworthy and credible manner. To assist the analysis of the data, coding has been done

based on Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp’s (2013) theoretical logic of informational, persuasive

and dialogical communication strategies.

3.4.1  Sustainability  report  

 

A Sustainability report is a corporate report that informs sustainability-related information

and is comparable with financial reporting (Global Reporting Initiative, 2014). SEB’s

Sustainability report should present information about the economic, environmental and

social impacts affected by SEB’s everyday activities as well as SEB’s values and governance

model (ibid). The report is used when analyzing the performance of SEB’s sustainability work

based on the four key areas of economic, environmental, social and governance performance

(ibid). The Sustainability report is of importance when studying SEB’s communication to

different stakeholders since it is one channel of communication between SEB and their

stakeholders. In addition, it is the main and most detailed communication channel regarding

annual progress in the sustainability field.

3.4.2  Web  page  

 

Data from SEB’s web page has been collected during April 2014. Important to mention is that

the data is taken from SEB’s group web page, sebgroup.com, since it includes the CSR

communication from the headquarters perspective making the data up to date and relevant to

the whole company. Only pages concerning CSR and sustainability have been included in this

study. The web page is relevant to analyze as it is one of SEB’s main official communication

21    

channels. According to Verboven (2011), company web sites are specifically important since

they are a mode of communication that companies most likely use when communicating to

stakeholders. Also, properly articulating CSR activities on the web page is important for the

firm’s reputation as well as legitimacy (ibid).

3.4.3  Code  of  Conduct  

 

SEB’s Code of Conduct (CoC) communicates SEB’s core values that SEB has in its business

relationships (2012). The CoC is an important document since it is one of SEB’s main

communication channels with their employees. SEB’s CoC is relevant data to study as

corporate codes of conduct are seen as a practical CSR instrument mainly used to govern

employee behavior and establish a socially responsible organization culture (Erwin, 2010).

3.4.4  Interview  

On the 24th of April 2014, a semi-structured interview with Elisabet Linge-Bergman,

communication manager at SEB, was conducted. The interviewee was purposively sampled to

ensure her relevance for the study and ability to answer the questions. Bryman (2008) states

the advantages of purposive sampling as it establishes good correspondence between the

research question and sample. Elisabet is responsible for SEB’s overall group communication

around sustainability and for the Sustainability report, qualifying her to answer questions

regarding SEB’s CSR communication.

The interview took 35 minutes and consisted of 20 questions. The questions focused on

relevant information about SEB’s communication to different stakeholders that was unclear or

not found in the documents. As van Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008) point out, companies

often refer to stakeholder engagement activities in CSR reports, indicating that stakeholder

dialogs contribute to their CSR activities, but, they generally do not report how stakeholders

contribute. Hence, it is difficult to study if stakeholders can influence the decision-making

process or not, which is an important dimension of the dialog strategy. Therefore, to probe

more into the dialogical and persuasive strategy, the interview was conducted.

Additionally, the interview guide (available in appendix 7.1) has been influenced by the

framework from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013). The interview was conducted in

22    

Swedish; therefore the data from the interview has been translated to English by the authors.

The authors made the transcription of the interview manually and in Swedish (see appendix

7.3 for a summary) after which the most important sentences were translated into English.

Moreover, the interview was recorded since, according to Bryman (2008) it permits repeated

examinations of the interviewee’s answers and it helps to counter the natural limitation of

human memory and accusations that the analysis might have been influenced by the

researchers’ values or biases.

3.5  Coding  guide  and  data  analysis    

Since this thesis uses the deductive approach the analysis has followed the theoretical

framework from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013). The data was collected utilizing

content analysis, which is an empirical technique that highlights patterns of words and phrases

that occur in any form of communication (Geppert and Lawrence, 2008). Content analysis

was used since it is a transparent and flexible research method (Bryman, 2008). The

Sustainability report, web page, Code of Conduct and interview have been searched for

phrases fitting the communication strategies. The channels have been classified to one of the

communication strategies then their data has been analyzed for references including or

excluding the different strategies. Following data generation, the authors obtained reoccurring

themes based on the three communication strategies. Also, aspects of what communication

strategy were used to which stakeholder was important when analyzing the data.

The coding schedule below demonstrates the process for which the data analysis has been

conducted. Moreover, it explains how the authors perceive the concepts from Cornelissen

(2011) and Trapp (2013) and how the concepts can be identified in the data material. To begin

with, the concepts have been divided into multiple dimensions and then into specific

indicators that have been used to search the data.

23    

3.5.1  Coding  schedule    

 

Concept:* Dimensions: Indicators:

Informational

One-way communication Single communication with no invitation of

discussions or means of collecting feedback

Factual information Statements and statistics of what is/has been

done in the field of CSR presented in an

objective manner

Persuasive

Two-way communication

and feedback  

Enabling two-way communication and

collection of feedback with the purpose of

tweaking the communication strategy in a

more persuasive and successful manner i.e.

listening but not acting upon the interaction

with stakeholders

Education

Educating the stakeholders with the aim of

legitimizing the company’s actions and

educating to change stakeholders behaviors

and perceptions

Persuasive/selling language

Not only mentioning what has been done in

the field of CSR, but also stating why and

motivating the legitimacy of their choices

Favorable information Avoiding undesirable information and if

mentioned formulated in a positive way

Dialogical

Real two-way

communication  

Clear exhortations of further discussions and

enablement of leaving direct feedback with

the intention and ability to affect the overall

CSR strategy

Stakeholders ability to

influence

Inclusion of stakeholders in the process of

creating CSR strategies

*Concepts derived from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013)

24    

3.6  Validity  and  reliability    

Validity and reliability are important criteria for assessing the quality of research (Bryman,

2008). Construct validity refers to the extent to which the research studies what it claims to

investigate (Farquhar, 2012). The construct validity of the thesis is increased because of the

triangulation of different types of data (Farquhar, 2012), as using a number of data sources

minimize bias. However, problems with validity could occur because of the analysis of the

different communication strategies. For example, it is important to know how much

stakeholders can influence the CSR decision-making and this is not measured to a large extent

in this thesis. Nevertheless, the analysis is based on the inclusion or exclusion of references to

stakeholder engagement. Additionally, increasing the construct validity of the research is the

coding schedule and the presentation of how the research has gone from question to the

generation of the conclusion (ibid). Internal validity refers to the explanation of causal

relationships between variables and results (ibid). Yet, this only applies to explanatory case

studies; thus, it is not of great concern to this study as it is exploratory.

Reliability assesses whether the evidence is consistent and stable (Farquhar, 2012). The

reliability of the study might not be sufficient since it is impossible to freeze a social setting

(Bryman, 2008). For example, the semi-structured interview would be difficult to reproduce

as other answers could be given at other times. On the other hand, due to the use of

documents the study can more easily be replicated, as the documents are static objects that do

not change due to time or social actors. Additionally, the reliability is increased because of the

transparent method used when showing results and collecting data (Farquhar, 2012). A

coherent research strategy is implemented throughout the study and the coding schedule can

be used to facilitate future research, increasing the reliability of the study.

External validity or generalizability regards whether the findings can be generalized beyond

the specific research context (Bryman, 2008). Due to the single case study approach the

external validity is decreased, as one case does not guarantee that the findings can be applied

more generally to other cases. Therefore, the findings of this essay only concerns SEB, and

further research can investigate if they are representative to the general picture.

25    

3.7  Limitations      

The study includes the most recent publications and documents in the field of SEB’s

communication about their CSR strategy to avoid obsolesce. Yet, according to Bryman

(2008), when using content analysis, a study can only be as good as the documents of use. To

address this limitation a semi-structured interview has also been conducted. As mentioned

earlier, the findings cannot be generalized to other companies and industries. However, this is

not of great concern since the thesis aims to gain a deeper understanding of CSR

communication and because previous studies have been conducted on the more general

picture of CSR within communication (Gronhaug et al., 2008; Frostenson et al., 2011).

Another concern of the thesis is the possibility of being subjective. Due to data only being

collected from SEB the findings could be biased since SEB has a preference of always

looking respectable in public. Therefore, the interview was conducted to gain more practical

knowledge about statements in the documents that seemed subjective or unclear.

Another limitation could be that the authors where only able to conduct one interview with

SEB. This decreased the amount of data access for the study, but, as the sustainability team at

SEB is relatively small, one interview works sufficiently for this study and since the

Sustainability report, Code of Conduct and web page where used enough data was collected

for the analysis.

3.8  Research  ethics    

In research, ethical aspects are especially important, since research has a main impact on

society (Swedish Research Council, 2014). The Swedish research council provides guidelines

and directions to apply in research regarding ethics (ibid), which has been followed in this

thesis. This research has been designed, reviewed and managed to ensure reliability, quality

and transparency. Objectivity has been followed throughout the thesis. During the interview,

the interviewer inquired the respondent if the interview could be recorded and complied with

the request. Also, the respondent was informed about the purpose of the research and agreed

to have the data shared. If wanted the respondent could be handled anonymously.

 

   

26    

4.  Empirical  data  and  analysis  

This section describes and analyzes the collected data in a structured manner, beginning with

the informational strategy, followed by the persuasive and dialogical strategy. Findings from

SEB’s Sustainability report are first presented followed by the web page, the Code of Conduct

and ending with the interview.

4.1  SEB’s  2013  Sustainability  report  

4.1.1  Informational    

 

The sustainability report can be seen as an informational communication strategy, as it can be

classified as a one-way communication tool, due to its nature of being static and not

interactive. However, the report could exhort and encourage interaction, discussions and

feedback around the report, which would indicate similarities with two-way communication.

On the other hand, the report in itself is not an instrument for collecting any feedback or input

of stakeholders, indicating that the report can be seen as a one-way communication tool.

Cornelissen (2011) generally identifies reports as a tool for informational communication as it

is an impersonal document where the reader feels no direct need to immediately respond to

the report.

The report reveals additional characteristics of Cornelissen’s (2011) informational strategy

with the inclusion of factual statements and statistics. For example, in the introductory pages a

timeline of SEB’s sustainability actions from 2004 to 2013 is presented illustrating concrete

facts of SEB’s sustainability actions. Additionally, the report explains SEB’s process for

detecting what issues to address and the decision for which of these to act upon. All issues

are initiated with a short fact box describing what the issue is e.g. “Financial crime is a major

international problem. Preventing this type of crime is a high priority for SEB, especially as it

is constantly changing, and the consequences for societies and the economy can be

substantial.” (Report, 2013:12). These factual boxes stress the objectivity of the information

and suggest SEB’s intention of providing the information to supply stakeholders with

knowledge in order to receive continued support.

27    

Throughout the report statistics in the form of Key Performance Indicators are presented in

comparison with the previous year of 2012 and many other examples of statistics and

informational sentences can be found throughout the report. These objective statements and

statistics of SEB’s progress in the sustainability sphere suggest that SEB’s Sustainability

report is of the informational nature, since it factually informs stakeholders about SEB’s

sustainability efforts. As stated by Cornelissen (2011), informational communication is to

generate knowledge and simply state information. According to this, it can be indicated that

some sections of the Sustainability report is written in a manner that corresponds to

Cornelissen’s theoretical dimension of the informational communication strategy.

Additionally, the report can be identified as what Trapp calls “a one way focus on

information” (2013: 4) where the purpose of the report is to provide information regarding

SEB’s progress.

4.1.2  Persuasive  

Even though the report contains informational sections many of the informative statements

and facts are followed by persuading statements that act in a way to legitimize SEB’s actions,

indicating confirmation of Cornelissen’s (2011) persuasive communication strategy. For

example, after describing stakeholders and what issues they have raised, SEB describes their

actions to the various issues. The pure information is followed by sentences motivating the

reasons behind SEB’s actions e.g., “The reason is that we are convinced that long-term high

customer loyalty and satisfaction drive profitability.” (Report, 2013: 11). Furthermore, SEB’s

main conclusions are e.g., “The analysis showed that SEB to a large extent already is

prioritizing the most important issues.” (ibid). This indicates that SEB is trying to stress the

appropriateness of their actions, telling the stakeholders that SEB is doing exactly what the

stakeholders wants them to do. However, as SEB collects the data regarding the priorities of

their stakeholders, it is not definite that the findings are valid and reliable; the findings might

be biased towards issues that are important to SEB. Additionally, indicating that the

information collected from stakeholders might be used as a persuasion tool, influencing

stakeholders to believe that their main issues are being addressed by SEB.

The theoretical logic of the persuasive communication strategy according to Cornelissen

(2011) is that it puts focus on persuading and selling the appropriateness and legitimacy in

ones actions. The effort of legitimizing SEB’s actions can be suggested by e.g., a section in

28    

the report where important heads of SEB departments answer questions regarding SEB’s

sustainability accomplishments, challenges and sustainability motives. In this section, Martin

Johansson, Head of Business Support at SEB answers a question regarding SEB’s main

sustainability issues: “[…] A big challenge for society is to narrow the gap between school

and work life. That is why we engage and cooperate with schools in these areas. […]”. (ibid:

7). This is of persuasive nature as it explains the issue followed by explanations and

motivations of why SEB is addressing it. The report also contains statements that suggest that

their efforts and actions have been effective and highly appropriate. However, they never

explain or motivate why their actions are seen as effective and the appropriateness is

motivated only with vague sentences. This indicates that SEB wants the readers to perceive

their actions as appropriate and legitimate; yet, they do not want to be questioned or receive

input on the degree of effectiveness.

Throughout the report many sentences and paragraphs include wordings such as we strive, our

ambition, we believe, our vision and we see. For example, “As one of the largest investors in

the Nordics, it is our responsibility to actively engage with companies we invest in regarding

corporate governance, social and environmental aspects. We believe that we in this way can

improve value of the assets we invest in, thus creating value for us and our clients.” (Report,

2013: 18). Using wordings like, “we believe” suggests a persuasive strategy since it tries to

convince the reader that SEB is doing what is most appropriate. In addition, such wordings

might be indications of SEB trying to sell their appropriateness and image, as it allows SEB to

present information in a favorable manner without providing data to back up the facts.

To further strengthen some of their actions the report includes embedded factual statements

from trusted sources such as the European Central Bank and from experts such as Klas

Eklund, Senior Economist. Subsequently, these statements are followed by sentences

motivating SEB’s actions. The report’s use of factual statements from trusted sources might

be a way for SEB to persuade the reader into considering all information stated to be

trustworthy, even though, as mentioned earlier, some sections only regard SEB’s believes and

visions and actually not real facts. On the other hand, the sustainability report is assured by

PwC that the material in the report is presented and calculated in a credible manner. Yet, this

assurance does not reveal if SEB has put focus on favorable information and statistics. Hence,

SEB might have excluded negative information.

29    

Conversely, paragraphs regarding SEB’s main sustainability challenges are presented several

times in the report, but, every time SEB avoids mentioning any direct challenges or obstacles.

Here statements are vague such as “Key for our success […]” and “[…] I find it hard to point

out one particulate challenge. Key for us is […]” (Report, 2013: 6). These vague statements

regarding possible challenges indicate that the report is pushing forward favorable

information instead of reporting the full picture.

Furthermore, SEB educates through conferences and events to raise awareness and to

generate dialogs around sustainability. SEB hosts the events with the purpose of increasing

knowledge and help employees perceive and establish links between their work and CSR with

the aim of creating better business. The report mentions that SEB educates employees on

some important issues e.g. how to tackle financial crime. This suggests that SEB tries to

persuade and educate their employees that their sustainability work is appropriate and that

they should follow the guidelines put forward by SEB. It is not stated in the collected data if

these events have collected any feedback, opinions or suggestions from the participants,

strengthening the indication that the events are more of a persuasive manner. Nevertheless,

there might have been discussions even though it is not stated in the Sustainability report.

SEB develops their internal culture through annual surveys that examines how their

employees perceive their situation. The questions in the survey do neither allow the

employees to elaborate nor does it ask for their opinions or suggestions. As the surveys does

not allow the employees to elaborate or indicate suggestions, it indicates that the feedback

collected is likely a tool of collecting support for SEB’s way of working instead of aiming to

influence the organization and the actual CSR strategy. Additional indications of persuasive

communication is SEB’s focus on everyday learning among employees, since this is a

technique for SEB to teach and persuade their employees to act and think in a manner SEB

regards as appropriate.

In addition, the report mentions SEB’s collection of feedback multiple times e.g. “Through a

range of channels and methods, we gather, monitor and analyze essential feedback across our

business.” (Report, 2013:10). Feedback is collected through social media like Facebook,

Twitter and Skype. However, looking at SEB’s Facebook page most comments are more of a

support manner and the information regarding social media in the report is presented as

“channels where we interact and can give support.” (ibid, 15). All in all, this shows that some

30    

degree of two-way communication is expressed in the report. However, the feedback seems to

be more of a supporting and listening function rather than a collaborative. Since it puts focus

on collecting for the reason of listening and supporting it resembles the persuasive two-way

communication instead of the rich two-way communication.

4.1.3  Dialogical    

In SEB’s sustainability report a dialogical communication strategy is found towards SEB’s

stakeholders. For example, it is stated that: “We have a particular focus on customer insights,

but also engage in dialog with local communities, non-governmental organizations,

employees, business partners, financial analysts and owners.” (Report, 2013: 10). This

indicates that some level of interaction and two-way communication exist. Yet, it does not

reveal if these dialogs have led to any real organizational or strategy changes, which is

required for the dialogical rich two-way communication according to Cornelissen (2011). The

report also states that the Board of Directors is responsible for deciding upon SEB’s CSR

strategy. Indicating stakeholders’ ability to influence who should decide SEB’s the CSR

agenda.

Furthermore, the dialogical communication strategy can be identified with statements such as:

“We will, through a structured approach, deepen and enhance the dialog with our

stakeholders, enhance business processes and strategic sustainability dialogs with clients and

portfolio companies” (Report, 2013; 5). Likewise, the report also mentions that SEB has more

work to do in deepening dialogs with stakeholders when addressing questions of SEB’s main

challenges and issues. These statements indicate that SEB has the ambition of enhancing their

dialogical communication, which coincides with the ideal theoretical logic of CSR

communication (Trapp, 2013). On the other hand, few explanations of how SEB engage in

dialogs with stakeholders exists in the Sustainability report and the focus on enhancing the

dialogs with stakeholders, suggests that SEB today does not engage in dialogs with

stakeholders to a large extent.

As mentioned earlier, SEB collects feedback through surveys and interact with stakeholders

through social media. It is also stated that customers can submit comments such as

complaints, suggestions and complements via multiple channels. Presenting channels for

direct and personal communication is an example of Cornelissen’s (2011) rich two-way

31    

communication. SEB’s presence on social media can be regarded as an immediate channel for

communication; however, it does not include the face-to-face personal communication

dimension.

In the report it is stated that: “SEB participates in a range of initiatives and collaborations,

where we can learn from others, as well as contribute our knowledge and experience to

further the responsibility agenda outside our organization.” (2013: 18). In addition, SEB

participates in industry and sustainability forums to discuss emerging challenges and trends.

SEB also state that they have held strategic sustainability dialogs with approximately 100

companies. These activities present the opportunity for face-to-face contact, immediate

feedback and collaborative meetings. Yet, the report does not mention what has derived from

these dialogs and collaborations suggesting that the communication has been used for

purposes different than mutual collaboration around the making of SEB’s CSR strategy. The

essence of Cornelissen’s (2011) dialogical strategy is that stakeholders should through dialogs

with the company have the ability to influence the CSR strategy. The report never mentions

inclusion of stakeholders in the decision making process or any areas where stakeholders

directly have influenced SEB’s choice of action.

According to the dialogical communication strategy some aspects of negative progress should

be communicated (Cornelissen, 2011). This is made by SEB to some degree where they state

areas that they are struggling with. For example, “Our greatest challenge related to carbon

emissions is traveling. Even though, we have been promoting traveling by train and the use of

video conferencing as well as other alternative ways of holding meetings, we see no decrease

in CO2 emissions compared to 2012.” (Report, 2013: 32). Mentioning the weaknesses and

challenges a company faces is important in the dialogical strategy since it can create dialogs

around how to solve the challenges or how to change the approach towards the issues.

Avoiding mentioning negative progress diminishes stakeholders’ power to influence since

they are not fully informed about all aspect of the strategy.

The Sustainability report presents contact persons with e-mail addresses and phone numbers

creating a channel for stakeholders to seek dialogs with SEB. It also presents the opportunity

to give personal feedback and face-to-face contact. On the contrary, the contacts are not

presented in a manner that exhorts or encourages stakeholders to give direct feedback.

32    

Indicating that the main purpose of the contact details are not for stakeholders to give input on

the report and SEB’s sustainability work.

4.2  SEB’s  sustainability  web  page    

4.2.1  Informational  

In comparison to the Sustainability report, SEB’s web page might be seen as even more

informational because SEB is using short push information and elaborate less on the

communication presented. For example, SEB’s sustainability web page contains in a

straightforward manner a list of international codes and agreements that SEB support.

Additionally, it includes factual statements about SEB’s business priorities and all the

business priorities are structured in the same manner, beginning with the heading “What’s the

issue?”, followed by a short section describing the problem, where SEB relatively objectively

describes what issues exist for SEB and their stakeholders. For example, “To address the

many social and environmental challenges the world faces, new thinking, innovations and

financial assistance are needed.” Here statements of what SEB has and will do with regards to

the issue in question is also described, however, always after explanations of why the issue is

important to SEB and what they want to achieve. The site also presents an overview of SEB’s

sustainability governance in an objective way i.e. simply stating the various groups and

committees. The site also includes a list of SEB policies and position statements in an

informational manner. All in all, the information on the web page is similar to the

sustainability report, however, a lot less detailed. On the other hand, the web page directs the

reader to the Sustainability report if more information is desired. Hence, the web page could

be seen as a first communication channel to SEB’s sustainability work and if the reader wants

to interact more with the company other channels like the Sustainability report or the Code of

Conduct exists.

Furthermore, the web page can be identified as a one-way communication channel as it does

not invite or allow any direct communication and feedback. For example, the web site could

have had a survey form where readers can give input or added a shortcut to their Facebook

page. Additionally, it is written in an impersonal way, pushing concrete information instead of

encouraging collaboration. The Sustainability report is more informational by itself than a

33    

web site, since a web site can present opportunities for two-way communication. Because

SEB fails to exhort any two-way communication or feedback and due to its less detailed and

factual knowledge around SEB’s sustainability work it can be identified as informational.

4.2.2  Persuasive  

The persuasive strategy involves company attempts to persuade stakeholders of the

worthiness of its decisions and actions (Trapp, 2013). Since, SEB writes several times that

what they are doing is relevant e.g. “Clear and effective structures for responsibility

distribution ensure that SEB's sustainability efforts address relevant issues and that they are

implemented across the entire company”, it suggests correspondence with the persuasive

strategy. Additionally, the structure of the business priorities with headings such as “What’s

the issue?”, “Why is it important to SEB?” and “What we want to achieve” helps build a

persuasive text.

The site includes sentences such as: “Based on a solid foundation of ethical behavior, we

contribute to better corporate governance in the banking sector, protect the environment and

increase our community involvement.” however, not really including how they actually

contribute. Thus, indicating that SEB is trying to persuade the readers that they are successful

and that their actions are legitimate, rather than only informing what has been done.

There is also some degree of education on the site e.g. “In a society with a high rate of

change, where uncertainty and complexity increases, there is a growing need to feel secure

and confident […] At SEB, we believe that trust and relationship with our customers is key to

our success. By constantly striving for clarity and transparency, by offering high quality of

advice and supplies, we take responsibility for always doing our best for our customers.” This

suggests the intention of trying to change the readers’ knowledge, due to the educational

language of explaining a phenomenon and what feelings one should have towards them.

Additionally, there are statements suggesting the legitimacy of SEB’s choices e.g. “We want

to support our customers, create value for our shareholders and contribute to society as a

whole. To achieve this, we need to work closely together with customers, employees,

investors, suppliers and other strategic partners”. Yet, SEB never state how they work closely

with their stakeholders and they do not invite any stakeholders to give feedback or to express

34    

their opinions regarding SEB’s work. This might indicate that SEB is not actively seeking to

engage with stakeholders. On the other hand, there are two contacts present on the site, both

with phone number and email, indicating that some degree of interaction is possible.

However, as stated previously only presenting the contacts enables two-way communication,

but it does not invite or encourage collaboration. Therefore, stakeholders might tend to not

seek communication or give immediate feedback.

4.2.3  Dialogical    

Throughout the site SEB mentions their desire of creating transparency and dialogs e.g. “We

want to be open and transparent and increase the possibilities to establish a frank and robust

dialog”. Nonetheless, this is more of a vision than reality since little invitation to dialog exists

on the web page. For example, the sustainability report mention that SEB interact with its

stakeholders through social media but on their web page there is no link to possible social

media channels making it more difficult to interact with SEB through their web page.

Additionally, the web page does not provide any tools for direct personal communication and

it only provides two contacts.

Conversely, SEB has a clear example of how they create dialog with other businesses. For

example, SEB state that they collaborate and engage in discussions around sustainability with

other companies e.g. “Through our involvement in the UN Principles for Responsible

Investment (UN PRI), we collaborate with investors worldwide.” Additionally, the site gives

examples of some of their dialogs e.g. “SEB works to influence companies to improve their

performance in environment, social issues and corporate governance. This is done primarily

through dialog, collaborations with other investors and voting at annual general meetings

(AGM). If the dialog with a company does not lead to a change after a reasonable period of

time, SEB can consider excluding the company from its investments.” This suggests the

dialogical communication strategy since SEB imply that they listen to what other companies

have to say about sustainability and then acts upon it. Collaborations indicate possibilities for

rich exchange of knowledge between SEB and other businesses and investors.

35    

4.3  SEB’s  Code  of  Conduct  

4.3.1  Informational  

The Code of Conduct (CoC) is a one-way communication strategy directed towards SEB’s

employees, since it is an impersonal document that is written by SEB’s top management. It is

not indicated anywhere in the CoC that employees or other stakeholders can comment or give

opinions on the policies set out in the document. Hence, suggesting that there is little if any

degree of collaboration around the formation of the CoC. On the other hand, employees might

have been included in the process of making the CoC even though it is not stated in the text.

Moreover, in the beginning of the CoC basic information about SEB is presented, e.g. facts

about the purpose of the code of conduct is presented as well as whom it is relevant for and

how it should be applied. Throughout the CoC there is a lot of information presented, for

example, SEB explains the nature of different topics, like money laundering and customer

relationships.

4.3.2  Persuasive  

Even though, most of the text in the Code of Conduct is of the informational style the

document also contain some forms of persuasive communication. For example, SEB states:

“By conducting our business in a responsible manner and maintaining a high ethical standard,

we create unmistakable added value for our customers and the markets in which we operate.”

(2012: 7). Additionally, SEB states “By building long-term relationships with our customers,

we learn how to understand their financial needs, business challenges and future ambitions –

and how we can help them to meet them”. Persuasive language can also be found e.g. on page

12 where SEB argues: “We have high business ethics and follow the rules that apply in the

countries in which SEB operates”. These statements indicate that SEB’s efforts and actions

have been responsible and that they are highly appropriate; yet, they never explain why their

actions are seen as responsible. This could suggest that SEB chooses wordings to convince

the readers that SEB’s choices are valid and legitimate, for example, SEB’s “high business

ethics” might be high in some comparisons but maybe not in all. To judge this, one would

need to know the whole context, which SEB has not revealed.

36    

Moreover, the CoC states that the CoC is taught to the employees through compulsory e-

training (2012: 5). Hence, indicating that SEB pushes the company ethics and behavior to

their employees. Also, educating the employees to believe that SEB’s approach is the best

way to go, however, they never state that the employees can contribute to any changes to the

CoC. Thus, suggesting that the CoC is used to some extent as a tool to persuade and educate

their employees into regarding SEB as ethical and to behave in an according to SEB

appropriate manner.

Conversely, there is a lack of statements regarding two-way communication in the CoC. Two-

way communication is an important characteristic of the persuasive strategy. According to

Trapp (2013) two-way communication is important in order to obtain stakeholder evaluations

of the company, and thereby measure their own performance. Therefore, suggesting that the

CoC does not fulfill all elements of the persuasive communication strategy.

4.3.3  Dialogical  

In the CoC there are two examples where SEB encourage dialog, e.g. “We encourage and

prioritize the development of the managerial role, internal communication and dialog between

employees at SEB.” (2012: 8). SEB state that dialog and internal communication is of

importance in SEB’s effort to reach its goals and increase profitability. SEB also state: “We

encourage employees from different units, divisions and countries to learn and share their

solutions and their ways of working which have proved successful. We believe in follow-up

as a method for continual improvement, and ensure that there are opportunities for feedback

and follow-up at all communication levels.” (ibid: 18). When analyzing the CoC it is clear

that SEB encourage their employees to engage in dialog between each other to make SEB

more successful. Nevertheless, no example is found of how SEB engage and listen to its

employees. A part from these examples, no other communication with a dialogical nature was

found. As discussed earlier the CoC does not include any indications of two-way

communication since there is no means of commenting it.

4.4  Interview  with  Elisabet  Linge-­‐Bergman,  Senior  Communication  Manager  

at  SEB  

37    

Regarding SEB’s main goal with communicating its sustainability work Elisabet mentions

that the goal is to show that sustainability is integrated with SEB’s business, making it a

natural part of SEB’s everyday work; indicating that the goal is to inform others of SEB’s

CSR efforts. Furthermore, when SEB is communicating its sustainability work Elisabet

confirms that SEB uses different communication channels for different stakeholders. For

example, SEB uses the intranet and different dialogs when communicating to its employees

while they e.g. use social media when communicating with customers. According to Elisabet,

SEB uses different communication channels because different target groups have different

knowledge and different levels of accessibility. Hence, indicating that the dialogical strategy

is higher when communicating with employees compared to customers. What is more, when

looking at the social media channels e.g. Facebook it is evident that the communication is

more of a supporting function than a channel for communicating around SEB’s CSR strategy.

In the Sustainability report a lot of focus is put on different types of dialogs with different

stakeholders, but little information is presented about how these dialogs work in reality. When

Elisabet explains more about these dialogs she mentions, “in relation to customers we have

different types of focus groups, for example, where we analyze need and demand” and

information about staff opinions is collected through a yearly study conducted through, for

example, questionnaires and internal chats where the co-workers can ask questions

anonymous. Regarding customers, it seems as if the dialogs are more of the persuasive two-

way communication than the dialogical and rich two-way communication, since the

information is gathered to understand customers’ needs and demand. Hence, suggesting that

the feedback has limited if any ability to influence SEB’s CSR strategy formation. According

to Trapp (2013) the essence of the dialogical strategy is that corporations involve their

stakeholders in decision-making processes and creating a model of mutual responsibility. As

previously suggested, customers might not be involved in the CSR decision-making process

to a big degree, but, rather to support SEB in mapping out what their customers’ wants and

need are. Thus, indicating a more persuasive communication strategy, collecting feedback to

receive continued support. Regarding employees, it can also be suggested that it is more of a

persuasive communication, since they are encouraged to post questions, not suggestions.

However, since they are able to post questions anonymously it might suggest some level of

honesty and criticality in the communication, which indicates some dialogical strategy. Yet,

the anonymity does not guarantee that the decision makers will do more than listen, thus, they

might not act upon the information gathered.

38    

Moreover, she mentions that NGOs are another stakeholder where communication is made

through physical meetings where SEB and the NGOs meet to talk and discuss about important

issues. SEB also engage in dialog and collaboration with other banks to see how they work

with sustainability. The dialogical strategy constructs on the logic of rich exchanges i.e.

having personal contact where the stakeholders have the ability to directly comment and give

immediate responses. These dialogs build on personal meetings and collaboration, hence,

coinciding with Cornelissen’s (2011) dialogical strategy. Nevertheless, it is difficult to sate if

these dialogs lead to any changes at SEB and if the decision makers actually are present

during these meetings or not. Additionally, Elisabet states that:

We think it is incredibly important to emphasize that we are part of society and we want to

help improve it. We want to run it the right way, because, we feel that we have responsibility

for it. There's no one else who takes the responsibility from our standpoint, and then we have

to listen to it and actually take it, not just listen and then just think it sounds good. But in

some cases change our work and process according to the needs that exist.

Hence, suggesting that SEB does in some cases change their strategy after listening to

stakeholders. Yet, it still indicates that SEB’s decision-makers decide upon the strategy and

finalize any decisions. Indicating that SEB first and foremost concentrate on issues that are

important to SEB and in cases where stakeholders views are in line or not too far from SEB’s

own vision they might adapt their strategy to fit better with stakeholders views. Stressing that

these dialogs can affect to some degree, however, stakeholders are not included in the actual

decision-making process, which is one of the dimensions of the dialogical strategy.

When asking how SEB decides which sustainability aspects are most important Elisabet

answers that it was decided in 2009 during a big workshop with hundreds of people working

at SEB and managers on different levels. After the workshop SEB’s CSR-strategy was

decided. This workshop stresses that stakeholders such as employees actually has some ability

to influence the strategy formation of SEB’s CSR strategy. Also, indicating that during the

workshops they have the ability to directly and personally comment on the CSR strategy

formation. What is more, the workshop also indicates that employees to some degree are

involved in negotiations and dialogs around the actual decision-making process of SEB’s

CSR strategy formation. This is an important dimension of the dialogical strategy, which

focus is on negotiations and engagement with stakeholders according to Trapp (2013).

39    

Regarding how SEB stands in communicating sustainability efforts that have progressed

negatively or that might risk gaining bad publicity, Elisabet answers by emphasizing that SEB

always tries to be as transparent as possible and she cannot come up with any example of

when SEB has kept something a secret. According to Elisabet SEB needs to be open and they

would not try to shield work that has not gone according to the plan. The ability to openly

communicate on both positive and negative progress is an important dimension of the dialog

strategy, since it allows stakeholders to see the whole picture. Additionally, it gives the

stakeholders the ability to judge and support suggestions to the challenges presented. Only

providing a positive image would indicate a persuasive communications strategy according to

Cornelissen (2011).

On the question about how SEB manage to make their work as transparent as possible she

mentions some challenges like “An area that we, for example, want to put more work into is

our role as owners,… for example, in Scania or Telia Sonera, if they are in trouble, which

Telia has been, then maybe we should be a little clearer about where we stand on the issue

externally” and “We of course also want SEBgroup.com to be more transparent in terms of

how we position ourselves in matters of ownership and we have done some work during the

last year and it is even clearer about how we want to come out with news, activities and

decisions that we have taken on”. These examples stresses that SEB wants to improve its one-

way communication through becoming better at informing different stakeholders about where

they stand as owners. Hence, indicating an informational strategy since it only intends to

provide more information to the stakeholders.

Furthermore, Elisabet explains that SEB has a close dialog with WWF about how SEB should

be able to reach their environmental goals. On how SEB works with WWF to improve their

environmental goals she mentions: “…WWF can criticize us and say that this is not

reasonable, you have to think in a completely different way… Maybe we do not ask them for

advice, but, we listen to what they say and we realize of course that we must change in some

other way to reach this goal”. This statement also stresses SEB’s persuasive approach, as it

puts focus on listening, yet SEB do all of the decision-making by themselves. This indicates

that the communication with different NGOs is not intended to result in company change, but

instead SEB seeks feedback from NGOs to obtain a good stakeholder evaluation of the

company. Furthermore, this type of communication seems more strategic than sustainable,

40    

which is similar to the findings from van Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008), stating that most

dialogs with NGOs is strategic instead of sustainable.

When discussing which stakeholders the Sustainability report is targeted for, Elisabet mention

customers, investors, staff members, NGOs and analysts. She also mentions what SEB is

explaining in the report “we are describing what we do here and what we want to do in the

future and partly what we have not done as well, and we are trying to be as clear as possible

where we know we have things left to deal with”. This statement indicates a desire of using the

informational strategy in the sustainability report, since they want to put focus on describing

what they do. Additionally, when stating they wish to be as clear as possible, it suggests an

objective communication strategy.

Regarding SEB’s process for collecting feedback from different stakeholders, Elisabet

explained that, last year, SEB started collecting information and feedback from different

stakeholders and started to look into how SEB could integrate stakeholders’ opinions in their

business. This was systematically done through external and internal interviews, which later

got coded into different excel documents. This type of communication leans towards a

dialogical communication strategy, since it includes the possibility for stakeholders to interact

and influence SEB’s sustainability work (Trapp, 2013). It is an example of negotiation

between stakeholders and SEB, which can be labeled as the dialog strategy (ibid). In addition,

the collection through face-to-face interview indicates the possibility for direct and personal

comments. On the contrary, the finalized excel documentation suggests that the real decision

makers are not involved in the interviewing and collection of feedback, but, only receives an

excel file with the findings. Thus, suggesting limited influential power generated from the

feedback and the lack of negotiation and face-to-face discussion with the decision-makers.

Moreover, it is hard to find examples of when SEB has changed something due to the

collected feedback from the stakeholders. However, since it is stated that SEB started the

process of collecting feedback last year, it could be too early to find specific actions taken

towards changing SEB’s CSR strategy.

When discussing what the communication with SEB’s co-workers looks like, Elisabet

mentions electronic tutorials as well as different presentations. For example, Elisabet and her

colleagues travel around to different groups presenting SEB’s sustainability work. This

implies that SEB uses the informational strategy when communicating to its employees. As

41    

stated by Elisabet SEB communicates through electronic tutorials and presentations, which

indicates one-way communication strategy with the intention to build staff awareness and

simply spreading information. Likewise, the educational aspect of using electronic tutorials

could be of the persuasive strategy, since they might focus on changing employees’

perception and knowledge regarding SEB’s sustainability work; also, emphasizing the

legitimacy of SEB’s actions.

Furthermore, Elisabet highlights that SEB has been using a program called “Your SEB” where

different meetings have been held with the goal to start a dialog about how SEB could

improve. According to Elisabet 16 000 employees have attended the meetings and sometimes

sustainability questions have been discussed. These meetings correspond to the dialogical

communication strategy since SEB invites its employees to discuss what points to improve

and also to give suggestions on how to improve these issues. However, it is not clear if these

meetings have led to any changes. Yet, it still shows correspondence to the dialogical strategy

since the employees are encouraged to discuss SEB’s strategy and give advice on how to

change it. Even though they are not directly included in the decision-making process they are

invited to discuss and provide input that the decision-makers take under consideration.

Succeeding, the interview continued with which stakeholder feedback is most important for

SEB. Here Elisabet answered that the customers are one of the most important stakeholder

groups.

4.5  How  the  communication  strategy  differs  between  stakeholders  

The table in appendix 7.2 presents a summary of the main findings of the different

communication channels used for various stakeholders. Every channel has been categorized

into one of the three communication strategies; giving an overlook of how the communication

strategies differ depending on the targeted stakeholder group. Even though the channel is

categorized into one of the three communications strategies it does not exclude the possibility

of overlapping, since some channels are used for multiple stakeholders. The channel is

categorized into the strategy that it fits the most. As the table illustrates, there is a difference

in communication depending on whom it is intended to reach. For example, customers, as

stated by Elisabet is one of SEB’s most important stakeholders groups, yet, customers do not

42    

possess the power to influence the decision-making process. The data stresses that SEB never

engages in rich two-way communication with customers.

On the contrary, Employees seem to have a higher degree of power over the forming of CSR-

strategy, since they have been invited to join in a workshop with the purpose of forming

SEB’s CSR agenda. Additionally, employees are involved in the project called Your SEB

with the purpose of generating dialogs around how to improve SEB. Even though there seems

to be some degree of dialogical communication with employees, they are also subjected to

informational communication via the intranet and Code of Conduct. But they are even more

subjected to persuasive communication via educational techniques, awareness events and

surveys.

Moving on to shareholders and investors, the shareholders are invited to an annual meeting to

receive information regarding SEB’s progress and to decide upon future directions for SEB.

The annual report and Sustainability report is communicated to inform the shareholders and

investors of SEB, indicating some degree of informational communication. Moreover, it is the

Board of Directors that decides upon SEB’s CSR strategy and the board is elected by the

shareholders, indicating that shareholders can to some degree influence SEB’s CSR strategy;

hence, implying rich two-way communication. The shareholders can also engage in

discussions during the annual meeting further implying the presence of the dialogical strategy.

Yet, these meetings can also be held in a persuasive manner, where SEB tries to legitimize

their actions.

Regarding the government it can be suggested that the communication is of the informational

style, as it regards communicating via reports. However, some degree of persuasive

communication is present through forums and meetings, where some level of two-way

communication is implemented.

Continuing to SEB’s business partners and suppliers, they are invited to give feedback in

questionnaires and during individual meetings. Thus, indicating that SEB implements

persuasive communication for reaching this group. Additionally, via industry forums and

meetings they can engage in discussions with SEB. However, these discussions, as mentioned

earlier, have the aim to increase awareness around CSR and persuading the worthiness of

43    

SEB’s actions. This indicates that SEB listens to what the business partners and suppliers say,

but they form the strategy independently. Hence, indicating the persuasive strategy.

The final stakeholder group, civil society organizations, is communicated via informational

reports and objective research papers, stressing some level of informational communication.

They are also exposed to the persuasive communication strategy since they participate in

meetings, dialogs and various forums. As discussed previously, the meetings with e.g. NGOs

has the intention of collecting feedback to obtain good stakeholder evaluation of SEB instead

of resulting in any actual CSR strategy changes; thus, posing similarities with the persuasive

strategy. Moreover, SEB collaborates with a range of initiatives such as The UN Global

Compact and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. During these

collaborations there is an opportunity for rich exchange of opinions around sustainability

issues, providing face-to-face opportunities for critic and feedback collection. Thus, implying

some level of dialogical communication, though, it must be noted that no references are found

which describe any actual company changes. It does not seem as if civil society organizations

can directly influence the decision-making process.

44    

5.  Discussion      

This chapter discusses the analysis and possible results. It structures the findings and

contrasts them with the studies mentioned in the literature review.

 

The nature of the Sustainability report, the Code of Conduct and the web site coincides more

with the one-way communication strategy, since they all lack the need to directly respond to

the communication. In addition, as described in previous sections, all three include

impersonal, objective and factual information, stressing the presence of Cornelissen’s (2011)

informational communication strategy. Also, Elisabet’s statement of the perception that SEB

is communicating on an informational basis, suggests that the informational strategy is being

implemented to some degree by SEB. These findings are present in all four data sources.

Nevertheless, it must be noted that even though the focus lays on the informational strategy

from SEB’s side, it can be suggested that SEB in fact, implements the persuasive strategy to

an even larger degree. The analysis points towards the use of a persuasive language, where

SEB tries to sell their image and legitimize their actions. Also, the structure of SEB’s

communication of informatively describing an issue, but, then subsequently motivating why

this issue is important, hence, highlighting the appropriateness of SEB’s actions.

Additional indications towards the persuasive strategy are SEB’s attempts on educating the

reader. As pointed out in the analysis, there are several suggestions of education. Firstly,

SEB’s focus on every day learning and compulsory e-learning of the Code of Conduct, stress

that SEB puts great attention to changing the perception and knowledge of their stakeholders.

The attempt to change stakeholders’ knowledge and attitudes in a way that is beneficial for

the company is an important dimension of the persuasive strategy according to Trapp (2013).

Secondly, the strategy of using an educational language of explaining a phenomenon and

what feelings the reader should have towards the phenomenon is evident throughout the data,

hence, stressing similarities to the persuasive strategy. Finally, the data shows educational

events and conferences aiming at raising awareness around sustainability. Also, helping

employees perceive and establish links between their work and CSR to aspire better business.

45    

Another dimension to discuss is the lack of negative information presented by SEB.

Communicating challenges and issues are important to the dialogical strategy, since it creates

a holistic view of the CSR-strategy, hence, giving stakeholders the ability to judge, comment

and support suggestions for improvement (Cornelissen, 2013). Even though, some statements

have been identified in the data as communication of challenges, there is still by far much

more favorable and positive information presented. Also, as presented previously, the

interview points that SEB always tries to be as transparent as possible and they would not try

to shield work that has not gone according to the plan. Yet, the low amount of challenges and

negative information found in the data material suggests that SEB avoids presenting

information in a negative way. Additionally, indicating that the information communicated is

formulated with a positive twist. Avoiding mentioning negative progress diminishes

stakeholders’ power to influence, since they are not fully informed about all aspect of the

strategy and only providing a positive image would indicate a persuasive communication

strategy according to Cornelissen (2011).

Despite the above stated clear nature of the one-way communication strategy of the data,

some references and inferences have been found indicating some level of two-way

communication. Two-way communication is implied due to the presence of feedback

collection tools, such as surveys, social media, industry and sustainability forums, strategic

sustainability dialogs and the presence of several contact persons. These references imply

some degree of two-way communication, since they all give the opportunity to give feedback

and create discussions around sustainability. Even though the data several times refers to

engagements with stakeholders and collaborative meetings, it is evident that few references

can be found to any concrete changes that these dialogs might have created.

Additionally, SEB does not encourage or ease the opportunity to leave feedback regarding

their CSR strategy. For example, on the web page there is no means of two-way

communication except the presence of some contacts. Also, it does not provide shortcuts to

any social media or other channels of feedback. Nevertheless, the amount of references to

stakeholder dialogs in the data, suggests some desire to involve stakeholders. However, since

there are no clear statements of how stakeholders can influence the decision-making process,

it is indicated that the two-way communication existing is mostly of the persuasive type.

Further implying that SEB engage with stakeholders to receive input and learn about their

needs and wants, but not involving them directly in the decision-making process, which is the

46    

core difference between the persuasive two-way communication and the dialogical rich two-

way communication.

The essence of Cornelissen’s (2011) dialogical strategy is that stakeholders should through

dialogs and collaborations have the ability to influence the company’s CSR strategy. Yet, it

seems as if SEB decides upon the strategy them-selves and instead of including stakeholders

in the process, they listen and gather information separately. The data never mentions

inclusion of stakeholders in the decision-making process or any areas where stakeholders

directly have influenced SEB’s choice of action. On the other hand, because stakeholders are

not directly involved in the actual decision-making process it does not mean that they have no

power to influence. Yet, it does still imply that SEB takes the final decisions; hence, the data

does not provide strong indications of the rich two-way communication.

All in all, it shows that the persuasive communication strategy is most commonly used by

SEB. This due to the persuasive and selling language, the presence of educating the reader

towards the worthiness of SEB’s actions and the aim of two-way communication to listen and

collect feedback instead of actual stakeholder involvement. This result coincides with Trapp’s

(2013) indication that managers primarily view themselves as listeners who seek stakeholder

input on the CSR agenda, but who ultimately form the strategy independently i.e. persuasive

communication. This type of communication seems more strategic than sustainable, which is

similar to the findings from van Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008), stating that most dialogs

with stakeholders is strategic instead of sustainable.

Regarding how the communication differs depending on the targeted stakeholder, it can be

implied that there is a difference in what communication strategy that is implemented. This

finding is in accordance with Frostenson et al. (2011) who stress that corporations consciously

organize CSR communication to particular stakeholder groups. Moreover, the analysis

showed that when it comes to customers only the two first communication strategies

(informational and persuasive) are implemented; meanwhile employees are exposed to all

three communication strategies. This could connect to Frostenson et al.’s (2011) findings that

CSR strategies do not include customers to a large extent. As the analysis indicates that

customers do not possess any influential power of SEB’s CSR decision-making power,

because customers are not subjected to the dialogical communication strategy.

47    

The analysis also showed that the informational strategy is implemented to all stakeholders

through e.g. reports; meanwhile, the dialogical strategy is used more selectively. For example,

rich two-way communication and collaborative dialogs are only evident between

shareholders, employees and SEB. Despite the common references to dialogs and meetings

with other stakeholder groups the analysis stress that these dialogs seem to rarely result in any

company change. Moreover, they usually have the intention of generating increased

awareness and legitimizing SEB’s actions. Hence, as Trapp (2013) indicates, companies seek

stakeholder input on the CSR agenda, but they ultimately form the strategy independently.

The findings correspond to Trapp’s (2013) notion of a mismatch between theory and practice,

suggesting that companies rather communicate with the persuasive strategy than the

dialogical. This is the case even in spite of theoretical agreement that stakeholder influence

and dialogical communication is the most beneficial CSR communication strategy (Trapp,

2013; Cornelissen, 2011; van Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2008). The potential lack of

correlation between theory and practice should be investigated further. If theory is not

applicable to practice it diminishes the practicality of it, stressing the need for research around

theories that are applicable to real life, not only under idealistic conditions.

According to Maignan and Ferrell (2005), companies will engage in CSR-behavior when the

presence of stakeholder power and cooperation with them is high. Yet, the findings suggest

that cooperation is low with most stakeholder groups in SEB’s case i.e. low indications of

dialogical communication. Despite, the low levels of dialogical communication SEB still

engage in CSR-behavior, stressing non-equivalence to Maignan and Ferrell’s (2005) findings.

Hence, suggesting further research within this subject, investigating if there is a correlation

between stakeholder power and CSR-behavior.

48    

6.  Conclusion      

This section includes the overall findings and contributions of this study. It also describes

suggestions for future research and possible limitations of the presented findings.

With the theoretical framework from Trapp (2013) and Cornelissen (2011) the research

question of “How  does SEB communicate its CSR strategy to its stakeholders and how does

the communication style differ between various stakeholders?” has been answered. In trying

to understand the emerging trend of CSR communication the aim of the thesis was to gain a

deeper understanding of how CSR communication works in practice with a focus on different

stakeholders. Also, the thesis intended to compare practice with theory. The findings indicate

that SEB uses informational, persuasive and dialogical communication strategies with a focus

on the persuasive strategy. Also, the communication styles differ between various

stakeholders depending on whom it intends to reach. For example, the informational and

persuasive communication strategy is used for almost all stakeholders, while the dialog

strategy is mainly used for employees and shareholders. Finally, practice does no correspond

to theory in this case, since SEB does not implement the dialog strategy to the extent

suggested in the theory by Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013).

The validity of the thesis is relatively high because of the triangulated evidence base of

multiple data sources used to minimize bias. More interviews could have been conducted to

strengthen the validity. Also, the reliability of the thesis is reasonably high due to the

transparent method used and while the interview is harder to replicate, the analysis of the

Sustainability report, CoC and web page are easy to replicate. As little has been studied

before on how companies communicate CSR in practice this thesis, to some extent, fills the

research gap.

A shortcoming with this thesis is that it fails in assessing how much influence each

stakeholder has on SEB’s CSR strategy. Hence, future research should investigate the degree

of dialogical communication not only based on references of it, but also, on the degree of

influence stakeholders actually have on the CSR strategy. Also, the findings are not

generalizable, suggesting future research on multiple cases to provide generable answers.

Future research is also needed on other companies to enhance the discussion of how CSR

49    

communication is managed and which communication strategy that is most practically

effective.

To conclude, the findings imply a potential mismatch between theory and practice, indicating

that the persuasive strategy is highly implemented despite recommendations towards

dialogical communication. Moreover, different stakeholders are targeted with different

communications, hence, creating different opportunities to influence CSR decisions.

50    

7.  Appendix  

7.1  Interview  guide      

How long have you worked for SEB and how come you ended up working with CSR?

What is SEB’s main goal when communicating your CSR-work? Why is it important to

communicate your sustainability activities and achievements?

Who would you say is the main target for SEB’s sustainability report? Do you have any

statistics on who actually reads it?

Do you use different communication channels when communicating to different

stakeholders? What channels do you use and for what reason?

Several times in the sustainability report you mention dialogs with stakeholders, could you

give an example of such a situation?

Can you elaborate on what the dialog looks like?

How does SEB use the information or knowledge gained from these dialogs?

(In your sustainability report, you focus on the dialog you have with your employees. Could

you give examples of what these dialogs have led to?)

What is SEBs main reason for collecting feedback and engaging in dialogs with stakeholders?

How does the process for feedback look (collecting, analyzing and prioritizing)? Can you give

an example? Is the feedback collected from various stakeholders of equal importance

(Customers, employees, communities, shareholders and suppliers and business partners)?

Can you give an example of something that SEB has done after a dialog with stakeholders?

How do you decide what CSR issues and activities to concentrate on? (Are any stakeholders

included in the process? If so, in what way are they included?)

How does SEB relate to communicating CSR work that might generate negative publicity

(e.g. instead of improving in an area, you performed worse, would you still communicate it?)

Do you discuss your challenges and obstacles with your stakeholders?

51    

How does SEB work to keep the communication as transparent as possible?

   

52    

7.2  Summarizing  table  of  findings  regarding  how  the  communication  

strategy  differs  between  stakeholders  

Stakeholder

group*

Informational strategy Persuasive strategy Dialogical strategy

Customers Internal customer insight

web portal hosting surveys

such as prospera

Needscope, SEB Brand

tracking, reputation index,

SKi, Finansbarometern

Web page

Collecting feedback and

complaints received via

customer advisors and

relationship managers

Social media and online

Customer insight surveys

Focus groups to analyze

needs and wants

External interviews that

are coded and given to

decision-makers

Employees Town hall meetings

Leadership development

programs

Workers Councils meetings

Code of Conduct

Intranet

Annual employee survey

Every day learning tools

Intranet

Internal interviews that

are coded and given to

decision-makers

Events and conferences to

create awareness

Annual health and safety

reviews

Open internal chats

with executive

management

Value dialogs

Your SEB

Workshop to decide

upon sustainability

actions

Shareholders

and investors Annual reporting

Sustainability report

Surveys such as

Bloomberg, RobecoSAM,

Vigeo, Sustainalytics,

Engagement dialogs

Board of Directors

decide upon the CSR-

53    

Oekom and Imug strategy (which are

elected by the

shareholders)

Annual meeting

Government Economic and policy trend

analysis report

Industry forums and

meetings

Suppliers and

Business

partners

Questionnaires

Individual meetings

Industry forums and

meetings

Collaboration meetings

Civil society

organizations Research papers about the

general public

Sustainability report

Media coverage

Meetings with NGOs to

listen what they think

Dialogs with local

organizations

CS forums

Regular meetings with

NGO’s

Local community

engagements

Round table

discussions,

Participation in a range

of initiatives and

collaboration e.g. UN

Global Compact and

OECD

* The stakeholder groups are taken from SEB’s own definitions (Sustainability Report, 2013: 10)

7.3  Summary  of  interview  (in  Swedish)    

Vad är SEBs huvudsakliga mål med och kommunicera ert hållbarhetsarbete?

-­‐ Vårt mål med att kommunicera hållbarhetsarbetet är att visa att det är en integrerad del

av vår affär. Vi är väldigt noga med att både säga internt och externt att det inte är så

54    

att här är SEB och vi jobbar med vår affär och sen är vårt hållbarhetsarbete här, utan

det är en naturlig del.

Skulle ni säga att ni använder olika kommunikationskanaler när ni kommunicerar med

olika stakeholders?

-­‐ Ja, det kan man ju säga att vi gör. Med våra medarbetare har vi intranät, mycket

dialogsamtal och den vardagliga chefskommunikationens mellan chefer och

medarbetare där vi då försöker stötta chefer. Med privatkunder så har vi ju sociala

medier och vi har en hemsida så vi har en mängd olika kanaler för olika stakeholders,

det är helt rätt.

Varför skulle du säga att ni använder olika kanaler?

-­‐ Därför att olika målgrupper har olika behov och olika kunskaper och olika grad av

tillgänglighet i olika kanaler. Som sociala medier bland privatkunder, till exempel, då

är ju kunder framförallt den yngre generationen, då är man mycket mer på sociala

medier, och om vi vill nå ut till dem måste vi ju använda de kanaler som är mest

relevanta.

Och flera gånger i hållbarhetsrapporten så nämner ju ni att ni har många dialoger med

stakeholders. Skulle du kunna ge ett exempel på hur en dialog skulle kunna se ut?

-­‐ Ja, vad gäller kunder så har vi olika typer av fokusgrupper till exempel där vi ser till

behov och efterfrågan. Vad gäller medarbetarna så har vi precis i fredags avslut vår

medarbetarundersökning som vi kommer ha en gång om året. Det är ett sätt att få

information om vad medarbetare tycker. Samtidigt har vi interna chattar där Annika

Falkengren tillsammans med en representant från verkställande ledningen chattar. Där

kan man anonymt ställa frågor, vilket är väldigt uppskattat. Andra stakeholders kan

vara NGOs tillexempel där vi har möten där man träffas och pratar med WWF eller

Svenska Kyrkan. Vi träffar också konkurrenter i olika sammanhang. Det finns olika

typer av samarbetsformer kan man säga.

55    

Vad gör ni med all den informationen?

-­‐ Vad gäller kunderna, där har vi samlat alla kundinsikter i en portal. Vi har alla olika

typer av kunder på en internetsida och då kan man gå in där och se den senaste

undersökningen tillexempel. Det kan vem som helst göra i företaget så vi har samlat

alltihop i en kundinsiktsportal, vilket hjälper oss i vårt arbete framåt därför att precis

som vi säger är det ju väldigt mycket om att vi lyssnar på vad våra stakeholders säger

och tycker, för vi är ju inte någon isolerad bubbla som säger att vi är en bank och vi

gör så här mycket affärer för vår egen skull, det är ju inte det för att det vi tyckt är

otroligt viktigt att poängtera är ju att vi vet att vi är en del av samhället och det vill vi

vara med och driva, vi vill ju driva det åt rätt håll, för vi känner att vi har ansvar för

det, så det är ju ingen annan som tar det ansvaret ur vår synvinkel, och då måste vi

lyssna på det och faktiskt ta det, inte bara lyssna och sen, ha det låter bra, utan också i

vissa fall ändra på vårt arbete och process efter de behov som finns.

Så du skulle säga att de ändå påverka lite riktningen av arbetet?

-­‐ Ja!

Skulle du kunna ge ett exempel på någonting som ni har gjort efter ni har haft en

dialog?

-­‐ Ja, en sak som kommer fram i kundundersökningar är tillgängligheten, att nå sina

banktjänster då på enkla sätt.

Hur bestämmer ni vilka hållbarhetsfrågor som ni koncentrerar er på?

-­‐ Grunden till hållbarhetsarbetet sattes 2009 kan man säga, då var det ett stort

seminarium med flera hundra medarbetare och chefer på alla nivåer, och det var då

som man satte arbetsmodellen och strategi.

Hur ser SEB på att kommunicera era hållbarhetsaktiviteter som kanske riskerar att ge

negativ publicitet?

56    

-­‐ Vi eftersträvar verkligen transparens i allt vi gör och jag kan ju ta som exempel då de

miljömål som vi har. Målet formulerades 2009 och det utgår från 2008 att fram tills

2015 ska vi minska våra koldioxidutsläpp med 45 procent och hittills har vi då kommit

till 36 procent. Om det blir så att vi inte skulle nå till 45 procent om två år kommer vi

inte vara tysta om det och försöka mörka det, vi måste ju vara öppna. Jag kommer inte

riktigt på något exempel där vi har gjort någonting och sen mörka det.

Skulle ni ta upp problemen och diskutera det med andra och se om andra har några

idéer hur ni kan förbättra er?

-­‐ Ja, vi har ju till exempel en väldigt nära dialog med WWF därför att i år så stod vi still

på miljömålet, det är alltså på ungefär 36 procent och det var det då året innan också.

Då kan ju WWFs kritisera oss och säga att det här håller ju inte, ni måste tänka på ett

helt annat sätt. Då kanske vi inte frågar dem om råd men däremot lyssnar vi på vad de

säger och vi inser ju också att då måste vi ändra på något annat sätt för att nå upp till

det här målet.

Hur gör ni för att se till så att den är så transparent som möjlig?

-­‐ Vi försöker på olika sätt få ut budskap och vara så öppna som det bara går. Vi vill till

exempel satsa mer på det i vår roll som ägare, att vi har innehav i till exempel Scania

eller Telia Sonera och dem är i blåsväder vilket Telia har varit. Då ska vi vara lite

tydligare med var vi står i den frågan externt. Då vill vi ju också på SEBgroup.com

vara mer transparenta vad gäller hur vi ställer oss i ägarfrågor och det har vi gjort ett

arbete om förra året och det är ännu tydligare nu hur vi vill komma ut med nyheter,

aktiviteter och beslut som vi tagit.

Vem skulle du säga den här hållbarhetsrapporten är riktat emot?

-­‐ Det är kunder och investerare, medarbetare, NGOs och analytiker. Därför att vi

berättar ju om vad vi gör här och vad vi vill göra i framtiden också och delvis då vad

vi inte har gjort också, och det försöker vi vara så tydliga med som möjligt. Det är inte

57    

främst en privatperson som är kund som har ett bankkonto, det är inte den främsta

målgruppen, utan det förutsätter att man är lite påläst och har intresse i de här

frågorna.

Ni pratar också mycket om att ni samlar feedback, via sociala medier och sådär, men

hur ser hela den processen ut när ni samlar och analyserar och kanske prioriterar vad

som är viktigt?

-­‐ Det är en nyhet från förra året, det här med vad som är viktigt för våra stakeholders

och vad är viktigt för vår affär och kombinationen där emellan. Det handlar om att

träffa olika typer av stakeholders på olika nivåer och i olika former. Vi samlade in

informationen och så satt vi där väldigt konkret med ett Exceldokument med alla saker

som stakeholderna tagit upp. Vi gjorde intervjuer externt och internt.

Hur gör ni då för att få med er alla anställda så att de också ska känna att det här är

viktigt?

-­‐ Det jobbar vi mest med kan man säga. Vi har olika typer av e-utbildningar och

presentationer och sådär men sen vet vi också för man måste känna någon typ av

engagemang med hjärtat också så då så är vi och är ute och presenterar vi tre, jag,

Jonas och Cecilia. På privatkundssidan kan det handla om privatrådgivare som sitter

och pratar om olika situationer, därför det är just dialogen som gör att det väcks

någonting. När vi pratar om kultur, värderingar och så har vi ju haft ett program som

heter ”Your SEB”. Då har det skett dialogmöten kring hur man bemöter kunder eller

hur vi samarbetar bättre och blir mer effektiva. Då vill vi också få in

hållbarhetsaspekten som mer naturligt i många av de här mötena då och då kan vi

bidra där med olika typer av verktyg.

Hur skulle du säga är feedbacken i dem här dialogerna ni har? Är den lika viktig från

alla stakeholders eller är det någon viss grupp som kanske är något viktigare?

58    

-­‐ Ja, man kan väl säga att kunderna är ju väldigt viktiga eftersom utan kunderna så har

vi ju ingen affär, då har vi ju ingen verksamhet över huvud taget och är dem inte nöjda

så stannar dem inte så det är klart att de är ju viktigast.

Men annars så försöker ni prioritera all feedback?

-­‐ Man kan ju inte säga att allt är lika. Media har ju andra behov än medarbetarna till

exempel. Medarbetarna behövs för at att vi ska skapa värde i samhället, och det

försöker vi göra. Det handlar ju väldigt mycket om att som medarbetare ska man

känna att man har möjlighet att utvecklas, att man blir sedd och får bra coaching och

feedback från sina chefer.

Är det lätt om jag som anställd till exempel upptäcker något problem om jag vill anmäla

det eller påpeka det?

EL

-­‐ Ja, det är också en grej som under 2012 så förtydligade vi en sån här, den så kallade

whistle blowing processen då, så att nu kan man ju då gå in, antingen kan man ringa

ett telefonnummer eller så kan man skicka ett mail till två personer. Där kan man göra

en anmälan, och det kan man göra anonymt.

   

59    

8.  Bibliography  

AMA Publishing. (2013). Definition of Marketing. [online] Available at:

<https://archive.ama.org/Archive/AboutAMA/Pages/DefinitionofMarketing.aspx> [Accessed:

1 April 2014].

Bankföreningen. (2007). Banker I Sverige. Faktablad om Svenska Bankmarknaden.

Basu, K., and Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of

sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), p. 122–136.

BBC. (2014). Business Studies. BBC. [online] Available at:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/business/environment/stakeholders1.shtml>

[Accessed: 20 May 2014].

Bhattacharya, C.M. and Sen, S. (2004). Does doing good always lead to doing better?

Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2),

p. 225-243.

Björling, E. (2010). Handelspolitiska deklarationen. [online] Available at:

<http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/14/37/94/f1b3d0ff.pdf> [Accessed: February 23

2014]

Borglund, T. (2012). Våga använda CSR i kommunikationen. n.p. CSR i Praktiken. [blog] 14th

March 2012, Available at: <http://csripraktiken.se/2012/03/14/tommy-borglund-vaga-

anvanda-csr-i-kommunikationen/> [Accessed: 3 April 2014].

Borglund, T., De Geer, H. and Hallvarsson, M. (2008). Värdeskapande CSR: Hur företag tar

socialt ansvar. Stockholm:Norstedts.

Birth, G., L. Illia, F. Lurati and A. Zamparini. (2008). Communicating CSR: Practices Among

Switzerland’s Top 300 Companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

13(2), p.182–196.

60    

Capriotti, P. and A. Moreno. (2007). Communicating Corporate Responsibility Through

Corporate Web Sites in Spain. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(3),

p. 221–237.

CoC. (2012). SEB’s Code of Business Conduct. [pdf] Available at:

<http://sebgroup.com/Documents/Sustainability/sustainability_governance/Code_of_conduct/

Code_of_Conduct.pdf> [Accessed: 18 April 2014].

Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice. London:

SAGE.

Devinney, T. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and

the ugly of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2),

p. 44–56.

Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies

for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36: p. 90–100.

Erwin, P. (2010). Corporate codes of conduct: the effects of code content and quality on

ethical performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, p. 535-548

Fiedler, K. (2007). Construal level theory as an integrative framework for behavioral

decision-making research and consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17(2),

p. 101–106.

Flick, D.L. (1998). From Debate to Dialogue. Using the Understanding Process to Transform

our Conversations. Orchid: Boulder, CO.

Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management. A Stake- holder Approach. Marshfield, MA:

Pitman.

Friend, J. (2009). The Truth about Green Business. Portland:Financial Tomes Prentice Hall.

61    

Frostenson, M., Helin, S. and Sandström, J. (2011). Organising Corporate Resonsibility

Communication Through Filtration: A Study of Web Communication Patterns in Swedish

Retail. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, p. 31-43.

Forbes (2013). The Top 7 Online Marketing Trends That Will Dominate 2014. [online]

Available at: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaysondemers/2013/09/17/the-top-7-online-

marketing-trends-that-will-dominate-2014/> [Accessed: 8 March 2014].

Geppert, J. and Lawrence, J. (2008). Predicting Firm Reputation Through Content Analysis of

Shareholders ’ Letter. Corporate Reputation Review, 11 (4), p. 285–307

Global Reporting Initiative. (2014). About Sustainability Reports. [online] Available at:

<https://www.globalreporting.org/information/sustainability-reporting/Pages/default.aspx>

[Accessed: 29 April 2014].

Granados, N. and Gupta, A. (2013). Transparency Strategy: Competing with Information in a

Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 37(2).

Harad, K. C. (2013). Content Marketing Strategies to Educate and Entertain. Journal of

Financial Planning, 3, p. 18-20.

Hunt, S.D. (1983). General theories and the fundamental explananda of marketing. Journal of

Marketing, 47(4), p. 9-17.

Industry Canada. (2012) An overview of corporate social responsibility. Government of

Canada. [online] Available at: <http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/csr-rse.nsf/eng/rs00129.html>

[Accessed: 20 May 2014].

Isaacs, W.N. (1993). Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning.

Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), p. 24–40.

Koiso-Kanttila, N. (2004). Digital Content Marketing: A Literature Synthesis. Journal of

Marketing Management, 20, p. 45-65.

62    

KPMG. (2008). International Survey of Corporate Social Responsibility 2008. Amstelveen:

KPMG.

Liberman, N. and Förster, J. (2011). Estimates of spatial distance: A Construal Level Theory

perspective. Schubert, p. 109-128.

Lii, Y., Wu, K. and Ding, M. (2011). Doing Good Does Good? Sustainable Marketing of CSR

and Consumer Evaluations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,

20, p. 15-28

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2005). A Stakeholder Model for Implementing

Social Responsibility in Marketing. European Journal of Marketing,39(9/10)

Marclow, C. L. and Bönnelyche, N. (2013). Index för ansvarsfullt företagande 2013. [pdf]

Available at: <http://omoss.folksam.se/polopoly_fs/1.118908!/Index%202013_11_15.pdf>

[Accessed: 20 April 2014].

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., and Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility:

Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), p. 1–18.

Merwe, R., Berthon, P. and Barnes, B. (2007). Analysing ‘theory networks’: identifying the

pivotal theories in marketing and their characteristics. Journal of marketing management,

2007, 23(3-4), p.181-206

Morsing, M., and Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication:

Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European

Review, 15(4), p. 323-338.

Mögele, B. and Tropp, J. (2010). The emergence of CSR as an advertising topic: A

longitudinal study of German CSR advertisements. Journal of Marketing Communications,

16(3), p. 163–181.

New York Times (2013). Media Agency to Host Event for Branded Content. [online]

Available at: <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/business/media/media-agency-to-host-

63    

event-for-

brandedcontent.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&

url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick

%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26conte

ntCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry270%23%2F%22content+marketing%22&_r=0>

[Accessed: 8 March 2014].

Pérez, A., Martinez, P. and del Bosque, I. (2012). The Development of a Stakeholder-Based

Scale for Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility in the Banking Industry. Springer-

Verlag, 7. p. 459-481.

Pouliot, V. (2007). "Sobjectivism": Toward a Constructivist Methodology. International

Studies Quarterly, 51(2), p. 359-384.

Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy & Society: The link between competitive

advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, p. 78–92.

Rodriguez, M.A., Ricart, J.E. and Sanchez, P. (2002). Sustainable development and

sustainability of competitive advantage: a dynamic and sustainable view of the firm.

Creativity Innovation Management, 11, p. 135–146.

Rowley, J. (2008). Understanding Digital Content Marketing. Journal of Marketing

Management, 24(5-6), p. 517-540.

SEB. (2014). About SEB. Web page available at: <http://sebgroup.com/en/About-SEB/>

Accessed: 15 April, 2014

SEB Annual Report. (2005). SEB - An Active Member of Society. [Pdf] Available at:

<http://www.unglobalcompact.org/system/attachments/1453/original/COP.pdf> Accessed: 3

April 2014

Smallbone T. (2004). Can ‘market transformation’ lead to ‘sustainable business’? A critical

appraisal of the UK’s strategy for sustainable business. Business Strategy and the

Environment 13: 96–106. DOI: 10.1002/bse.397

64    

Swedish Content Agencies (2014). 7 Färska Fakta om Content Marketing. [online] Available

at: <http://swedishcontent.se/2014/02/7-farska-fakta-om-content-marketing/> [Accessed: 8

March 2014].

Swedish Research Council. (2014). Rules and guidelines. [online] Available at:

<http://www.codex.vr.se/en/regler.shtml> [Accessed: 20 May 2014].

Trapp, L. M. (2013). Stakeholder involvement in CSR strategy-making? Clues from sixteen

Danish companies. Public Relations Review, 40, p. 42–49.

Van Huijstee, M. and Glasbergen, P. (2008). The practice of stakeholder dialog between

multinationals and NGOs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,

15(5), p. 298–310.

Verboven, H. (2011). Communicating CSR and business identity in the chemical industry

through mission slogans. Business Communication Quarterly, 74, p. 415-431.

Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. and Murphy, P. (2013). CSR practices and Consumer

Perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66, p. 1839–1851.

65    

Stockholm University

SE-106 91 Stockholm

Tel: 08 – 16 20 00

www.sbs.su.se