CSR Communication in B2B Service and Manufacturing Companies

The findings from the literature review suggests, there is a tendency that manufacturing companies

communicate CSR more than service companies (Lattemann et al., 2009), which also appears to be the case of the B2B companies represented by the interviewees. These companies include three manufacturing companies in the industrial engineering, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and three service companies in the IT consultancy and industrial transportation industries. The interviews suggest that it is easier for manufacturing companies to communicate CSR, as it related to their core business operations:

‘When we go out and say, you know, if you buy our [factory] and you run it efficiently, then [..] when you take care of your employees, train them, you will have the smallest environmental impact, but then you will also get the most efficient operations. Then you will earn more on your [factory] and this is a really good argument. [..] This is the way we talk to our customers about CSR’ (industrial engineering, appendix B).

In other words, although B2B customers might not be interested in CSR initiatives, because they are good for society, they are interested if the initiatives improve the products and services offered. The interviews show that the three manufacturing companies all address the environmental impact of their operations,

P a g e 48 | 133 which according to O’Connor & Shumate (2010) is the main CSR issue B2B companies choose to address. By addressing environmental challenges B2B manufacturing companies can demonstrate both the societal and financial benefits of their CSR initiatives. They can, thereby, communicate the business discourse of profit maximisation (Nielsen & Thomsen, 2007). This is arguably important in order to convince B2B customers of the relevancy of their CSR initiatives.

B2B manufacturing companies are not only able to implement CSR into their core business operations, they will also find it easier than service companies to select a societal challenge to address, because their core business is associated with particular societal challenges. For instance, for industrial engineering companies it makes sense to address environmental challenges, because, as the interviewee explains, their industry

‘accounts for 5-6% of all C02 emission in the world’ (industrial engineering, appendix B). Similarly, although the pharmaceutical company also addresses environmental issues, their main focus is on the perhaps obvious issue of access to medicine: ‘From a CSR perspective, what are those societal conversations where [our company]is the most apparent subject matter. Climate Change, for example: [our company] is not going to be the subject matter of the climate change conversation. [..] The conversations we are a part of is access to medicine’ (pharmaceuticals, appendix G). Thus, the concept of CSR fit definitely influences CSR communication of B2B companies, as previous research suggested (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010).

Additionally, it is important to emphasise that these three manufacturing companies all manage to make CSR profitable, at least in the long run, by implementing environmental initiatives that reduce production costs, by selling products that are associated with CSR and by addressing societal challenges, such as access to medicine, that will increase the demand for their products.

In comparison, the interviews suggest that B2B service companies struggle to use CSR strategically as a part of an explicit CSR communication strategy and/or as a central element of their corporate branding strategy.

For B2B service companies it is a challenge to communicate CSR, because there is not always an obvious CSR fit, but perhaps more importantly, it is difficult for them to make CSR economically sustainable. This could explain why none of the two IT consultancies consider CSR to be a competitive advantage. While one of the IT consultancies focuses mainly on compliance, the other mainly uses CSR for internal employer branding. One of the interviewees, for example, recognises that their CSR ambitions are not high:

P a g e 49 | 133

‘I don’t think we imagine that we need to be frontrunners within the area of CSR. We need to meet the requirements imposed on us, the legislation there is, and we of course want to do this, but, as I have said before, everything we do must have some sort of business goal for us, so because it makes sense to save on light, electricity and water, we do so’ (IT Consultancy, appendix D).

In other words, this service company focuses mainly on compliance with standards and legislations by implementing arguably minor cost reductions that competitors most likely do as well, so it does not make sense to communicate these initiatives to customers. Additionally, the IT industry is not strongly associated with the environment, so the company cannot use its core competencies to address environmental issues.

Therefore, focusing CSR communication on environmental issues would not be perceived as credible.

This perspective goes against the findings of the literature review, which suggested that in Denmark many B2B companies focus on the social dimension of CSR rather than the environmental one (Nielsen &

Thomsen, 2007). However, the interviewee from the IT consultancy emphasises that ‘we need to recognise that, besides CSR being an operational thing and a way of running the business, then even though all CSR people talk about the business case of CSR, then we are not quite there yet and the question is whether we will ever really get there’ (IT consultancy, appendix D). Thus, CSR initiatives for which there is a strong CSR fit – e.g. this IT consultancy’s effort to help the elderly learn IT – are not economically sustainable.

Therefore, it seems difficult for B2B service companies to make a business case of CSR. However, for certain B2B service companies, it will be possible to make a business case of CSR, for instance, in transportation industries due to the strong relationship between their business operations and the environment. The interviewee of the industrial transportation company, for instance, confirms this by stating that their efforts to reduce fuel is not only good for the environment, but their industry can ‘see that there is also a direct benefit for the business, as you can see it on the bottom line’ (industrial transportation, appendix F).

Consequently, B2B industries with environmental associations and B2B manufacturing industries will find it easier to implement and communicate a business case of CSR, which is necessary because of the lack of demand for CSR by external stakeholders. Moreover, for companies in other industries, such as services, they may need to focus on CSR that creates a social impact rather than an environmental impact.

P a g e 50 | 133