Varför CSR?
En fallstudie på SAS om orsaker till företagets arbete med Corporate Social Responsibility
Teacher EducationBibliotekarierSkönlitteraturBilderStereotyperDiskursanalysLitteratursociologiPatientupplevelserObotlig cancerDödenSjälvbiografiKvalitativa studierHomosexualGayLesbianNurse-patient relationshipAttitudeExperiencesEncountersHiv/aidsOmvårdnadPatientperspektivUpplevelseVårdrelationKvalitetMöteEkonomisk och social historiaKinaBilindustriPeugeotJoint VentureVWSAICSVWGAMGPACFatigueColorectal cancerInterventionPerceptionExerciseOmvårdnadPankreatikoduodenektomiLivskvalitet och hälsaNationalekonomiEkonometri,
ekonomisk teoriEkonomiska systemEkonomisk
politikExternaliteteröverviktFettskattGenusGenerationPraktisk hjälpSverigeåtagandenFysisk aktivitetKoncentrationsförmågaBibliometriCociteringsanalysCiteringsanalysSocialpsykologiVetenskaplig kommunikationInformationssystemInformationsarkitekturInteraktionInformationssökningStatistikOperationsanalysProgrammeringAktuariematematikTidsserieanalysTransferfunktionsmodellStrokePartiklarNationalekonomiEkonometri,
ekonomisk teoriEkonomiska systemEkonomisk
politikExportDutch DiseaseThailandTourismReal exchange rateInternational competitivenessValfrihetStudenterIdentitetIndividualisering.AsexualitetDiskursanalysFoucaultQueer teoriArbetslösaKontaktArbetslöshetAllportAttityderRollerTvångSjälvbestämmandeMaktEnsamstående mammaVerksamheter riktade till ensamståendeKASAMVardagslivSocial exclusionGruppmedlemLaparoscopisk cholecystectomiDagkirurgiÄldreomsorgAnhörigstödAnsvarBiståndsbedömareSamordning/samverkanKommunikationAdoptionIdentitetLängtanPsykisk hälsaSkrivarverksamhetKreativt skrivandeFolkbibliotekFunktionAktivitetInstitutionIdentitetSkolbibliotekFolkbibliotekBibliotekSamverkanRolldefinitionerGotlands kommunNyinstitutionalismLäsecirkelBokcirkelSamtalBoksamtalLäsningLäsupplevelseSkönlitteraturSamvaroKatalogutredningenDDCKlassifikationBIBSAMFolkbibliotekFolkbibliotekets ideologiska identitetModeraternas kultursynBibliotekspolitikKulturpolitikDouglas RaberIdé- och ideologisk analysIdealtyperPurchasingProfessional servicesPost merger integrationHealth careIdentityInternational competenceBoard of directorsCorporate governanceDiscourse analysisInterpretative repertoiresFilmThe film directorDiscourse analysisSocial constructionismGender studiesCreative leadership.Working climateWorking climate factorsEconomic resultProductivityLead timesResearch and developmentMultifunctional teamsResponsibilityIndependenceSocial Constructionism Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Employee Perspective
The term CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) is frequently discussed today. Many large companies work actively with CSR related questions. However, few empirical studies exist on what this work entails and why it is undertaken. Instead, most of the academic research focuses on what the term itself should mean. To bridge this gap this study centers on the employees? perceptions of CSR. A case study at Scandinavian Airlines has been conducted where employees, that on a daily basis work with CSR related questions, have been interviewed. The research question is: Why does SAS (Scandinavian Airlines) perform CSR related work according to its employees? The study concludes that three groups of explanations to CSR exist. The first consists of norm based explanations, where the employees refer to norms and general perceptions in society as the reason for conducting CSR initiatives. This way of reasoning is used when CSR is described as a burden, i.e. as something negative, or when CSR is described in general terms. The two other groups of explanations are referred to as an ethics case and as a business case. These two groups are the most frequently used explanations by the SAS employees and can be understood as arguments for CSR. The authors suggest that viewing the corporation as a strategic actor, that is actively making choices on its own, is important. This explains why the cases (the corporation seen as proactive) are much more frequently used than the norm based explanation (the corporation seen as reactive). However, of the two cases, the business case is the dominating explanation. The authors argue that this stems from the fact that calculative rationality is the dominating base for explanation; both in society in general and in management in particular. Nevertheless, the ethics case is also important in the employees? explanations, which suggests that different rationalities are needed to construct an acceptable motivation of the CSR work. The two cases, however, are used mutually exclusively, giving rise to contradictory views of why CSR work should be performed. Although both are needed to make a valid argument for CSR, it seems necessary to constantly separate the different lines of arguing.