Asian Journal on Quality

Corporate Social Responsibility for Charity or for Service Business?

Bo Enquist Bo Edvardsson Samuel Petros Sebhatu
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bo Enquist Bo Edvardsson Samuel Petros Sebhatu, (2008),"Corporate Social Responsibility for Charity or for
Service Business?", Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 9 Iss 1 pp. 55 - 67
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982688200800004
Downloaded on: 13 November 2014, At: 17:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 759 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Joan F. Marques, (2008),"Spiritual performance from an organizational perspective: the Starbucks way",
Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 248-257

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors
service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are
available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages
a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an
extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Asian Journal on Quality / Vol. 9, No. 1 55

Corporate Social Responsibility for Charity or for

Service Business?
Bo Enquist1, Bo Edvardsson1 and Samuel Petros Sebhatu1†
1
Service Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

Abstract1)

Following this introduction, this paper presents two conceptual and theoretical analyses-(i)
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

CSR and its relation to profit and charity (ii) CSR as part of a service business model. The
paper then illustrates these concepts using a comparative study of four service firms, with
particular emphasis on their different CSR activities and how these affect the mission of each
company. All four of the service companies are global actors with strong Service Brands
(Edvardsson, Enquist and Hay, 2006) and a leading position in using CSR as a driving force
for doing business: IKEA, Starbucks, H&M and the Body Shop. The paper then draws to-
gether the conceptual analysis and the case studies in a discussion of how CSR can be a
proactive driver in the service business. Because of the limit space for a QMOD paper the
focus is on the conceptual and theoretical analysis part and the empirical part and discussion/
conclusion has to be further developed.

1. Introduction

This is the first article in the service literature which combines Corporate Social Responsi-
bility (CSR) and the service logic. To attract and retain customers, and thus make a profit,
companies are continuously searching for innovative ways to create value and differentiate
their market offerings (Shaw and Ivens, 2002). Gummesson (2006) is critical about the axio-
matic pillars of marketing. He argues that these pillars are an exaggerated and simplistic re-
liance on a ‘free’ market economy; the marketing concept of customer needs and satisfaction
seems to be the highway to profit; maximization of short term profit (shareholder value) is
the only purpose of business; unlimited growth seems to be beneficial; corporate citizenship
diluted to charity; and blindness to the effects of unethical and criminal action and black
economies (ibid. p. 340). Gummesson (ibid.) looks for a broader view in marketing. Gene
Laczniak argues for an expansion of the service-dominant logic for some societal and ethical
dimensions (Laczniak, 2006). He has expanded four of Vargo and Lusch’s foundational
premises (FPs) 3, 4, 6 and 8 from Vargo and Lusch (2004). This article will, in an ex-
plorative way, counter this critique by Gummesson (2006) and also expand the service-dominant

†Corresponding Author
 56 Corporate Social Responsibility for Charity or for Service Business?

logic for some societal and ethical dimensions (Laczniak, 2006) using CSR and show real
business cases where CSR is an important part of value creation and value-in-use, from a
stakeholder perspective (Enquist, et al., 2006). The focus is on CSR as part of the dominant-
service logic (Lusch and Vargo, 2006), with the following two research questions in mind:
Is CSR only for charity or can it be an active part of a service business? If it can be part
of a service business, how will that look? This article is the first in service research to spe-
cifically focus on CSR.

2. Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

2.1 CSR and its Relation to Profit and Charity

The role of CSR in business management has been under debate. Friedman (1970) ques-
tioned whether a business can have any ‘responsibilities’ other than the responsibility to in-
crease its profits; however, other authors have disagreed. Grant (1991) dismissed Friedman’s
(1970) restricted point of view as fallacious. Carroll (1991) argued for a ‘pyramid’ of four
kinds of social responsibilities-economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic-thus integrating CSR
with a stakeholder perspective. According to Carroll (1991, p. 43), there is a “… natural fit
between the idea of CSR and an organization’s stakeholders.” This view was supported by
Kotler and Lee (2005). The changing nature of CSR has also been debated. Andriof et al.
(2002) argued that the prevailing business imperatives in CSR were originally ‘profitability,’
‘compliance,’ and ‘philanthropy’; however, from the end of the 1970s and onwards, these
authors assert that the prevailing business imperative became ‘corporate social responsiveness’.
Zadek (2001) has also referred to the idea of ‘responsiveness’ in calling for ‘responsible
corporate citizenship.’ In a similar vein, Elkington (2001) has argued that “… citizen CEOs
and corporations can fuse values and value creation.” The relationship between CSR and
brands was canvassed by Willmott (2001, p. 202), who introduced the concept of ‘citizen
brands.’
Vogel (2005) has utilised a broader concept of CSR when describing it as “the market for
virtue.” He investigates in his article whether there is a business case for CSR. His answer
seems to be yes, with the first constraint that CSR does make business sense for some firms
in specific circumstances and with the second contsraint that no researcher has answered the
question of whether there is a positive relationship between CSR and profit, but, as Vogel
also says, no one has ever proven the opposite. Recently, Xueming and Bhattacharya (2006)
have tried to answer the question between CSR and profit. In a JM article (ibid.) based on
secondary data where the relationship between CSR, Customer Satisfaction and Market Value
is investigated, they have two research questions: (1) Under what conditions do CSR ini-
tiatives result in positive financial performance? (2) Does customer satisfaction matter in re-
 The Asian Journal on Quality / Vol. 9, No. 1 57

lationships between CSR and firm performance? An important contribution made by this ar-
ticle is that their results regarding the significant CSR customer satisfaction market
value causal chain suggest that a firm’s CSR helps build a satisfied customer base and that
customer satisfaction partially mediates the financial returns to CSR (ibid.). This is most sig-
nificant for innovative firms: “In particular, our finding that the positive financial returns to
CSR, are amplified in firms with higher product quality indicates that internal corporate abil-
ities likely generates and sustains financial value for the firm” (ibid. p. 15). But the opposite
will occur in less innovative firms. Here, CSR activities will have a negative affect on profit.
We are not surprised about this result. Roberts (2001) has argued that CSR provides a new
form of ‘visibility’-i.e. environmental, social, and ethical visibility as a supplement to financial
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

visibility, and what he calls the “ethics of Narcissus” are not so much a concern for others
as a preoccupation with being seen to be ethical (Roberts 2001, p. 125). There is a big dif-
ference between CSR as a defending or as a proactive strategy. This is something which has
been communicated both by Roberts (2003) and Zadek (2004). In the empirical part, we will
look at enterprises based on contextualised data from four leading service companies where
CSR is an important part of the service logic and from these we will learn (both theoretical
and practical implications) about CSR as a proactive thinking/tool for value creation in the
service business.
How is the relationship between CSR and charity? Carroll (1991) talks about philanthropy
as the top of the CSR pyramid while Kotler and Lee (2005) argue for “Doing the Most
Good for Your Company and Your Cause.” Gummesson (2006) holds a critical view when
he talks about the mainstream of marketing where corporate citizenship (which can be seen
as part of CSR) is diluted into charity. “Doing Good to Do Good” is the old style of CSR
says Vogel (2005). Andriof et al. (2002) talk about the same shift. The new world of CSR
is, with regard to Vogel (2005), “Doing Good to Do Well.” Porter and Kramer (2002) show,
in their HBR article (Porter and Kramer, 2002), that philanthropy is in decline but, when
used in a proactive way, can be a “Competitive Advantage.” “Most companies feel compelled
to give to charity. Few have figured out how to do it well” (ibid. p. 57) is the message of
the authors and they show in the article that there has to be a convergence of interests be-
tween philanthropy and business. It is when corporate expenditure produces simultaneous so-
cial and economic gains that this convergence will occur (ibid.). Thinking about corporate
philanthropy in this way, you have to use CSR activities as part of your business model.

2.2 CSR as Part of a Service Business Model

In his article, Vogel (2005) shows that there is room for a business case for virtue using
CSR. But this in the sense for some firms and in specific circumstances (ibid. p. 42).
Xueming and Bhattacharya (2006) show, in their article, that innovative companies using CSR
have a positive relationship with profit. Using a brief literature review, we will outline CSR
 58 Corporate Social Responsibility for Charity or for Service Business?

activities as part of the service business model based on an expansion of the dominant serv-
ice logic (Laczniak, 2006). In the next chapter, we will then use this framework as a de-
scription and analytical model for our four case studies in order to better understand that
there is room for a business case using CSR.
A United Nations (UN) initiative, the ‘Global Compact,’ was launched in 1999 to bring
companies together with UN agencies, labour, and civil society in order to support ten prin-
ciples in the fields of human rights, labour and the environment, and anti-corruption. These
principles can be seen as a good start for CSR thinking. All four case firms are members
of the Global Compact. In the book “The Market for Virtue,” Vogel (2005b) critically reflects
on the potential and limits of CSR. CSR in the world of Vogel (ibid.) focuses on CSR for
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

the Working Conditions in developing countries; Corporate Responsibility for the Environment,
and finally CSR for Human Rights and Global Citizenship. We argue for expanding the do-
minant service logic from a social and ethical point of view (Laczniak, 2006), as well as
from an environmental point of view (Gummesson, 1999), when we use CSR as an integrated
part of a service business model. Vogel (2005) sees CSR as a proactive strategy tool. CSR
includes a stakeholder perspective which is broader than both shareholder value and customer
value (Enquist et al., 2006). To be able to analyse and understand how CSR activities will
govern those value creation processes for value-in-use (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) for stake-
holders, we need a description based on a service operation perspective. Johnston and Clark
describe a service operation perspective from a business focus; from an operational focus, and
from an encounter focus (Johnston and Clark, 2001). We will use these three areas to de-
scribe CSR as follow:

2.2.1 Business-related Concerns

Strong corporate values bring value-in-use to stakeholders and also affect the service brand
(Edvardsson, Enquist and Hay, 2006). From a review of the literature on this subject, it is
apparent that there must be a ‘good fit’ between the internal perspective and the external
perspective of a service company (Berry, 1999; Grönroos, 2000; Hatch and Schultz, 2001;
Ind, 2004). To achieve this, the core values of the firm appear to play a crucial role in
sustaining the brand (Edvardsson, Enquist and Hay, 2006). Values-based service (ibid.) shifts
the focus of managerial control from a preoccupation with financial control to a wider aware-
ness of CSR and the importance of ‘triple bottom line’ thinking using the three perspectives
(i) economic; (ii) social; and (iii) environmental (Enquist et al., 2006; Edvardsson, Enquist
and Hay, 2006).

2.2.2 Operations-related Concerns

By defining CSR through the lens of a company’s strategies and operating practices, a
practice-based stakeholder view of the corporation is taken, broadening understanding of the
 The Asian Journal on Quality / Vol. 9, No. 1 59

stakeholder to whom a firm is accountable (Waddock, 2006). She talks about “Responsibility
management” (ibid.) which has taken its inspiration from quality management (TQM), but has
a stakeholder perspective instead of only looking at employees and customers, which TQM
focuses on. Values-based thinking not only includes the economic, ecological and social per-
spectives, but also a stakeholder view of leadership, responsibility, and ethics (Pruzan, 1998).
Strong service companies which can be seen in terms of “The Globally Integrated Enterprise”
(GIE) (Palmisano, 2006) have their own codes of conduct (Cramer, 2006; Waddock, 2006)
which force suppliers to meet quality standards as well as social and environmental stand-
ards in the supplier and value chain of the GIE. HRM and corporate climate (Schneider and
White (2004) is a concept which also has a major impact on companies’ strategies and op-
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

erating practices and is related to CSR activities and shared values and meanings (Edvardsson
and Enquist, 2002). In achieving the integration of the various elements of a wider conception
of CSR, Zadek (2004), has talked about “the five stages of organizational learning.” The two
stages lying beyond compliance and relating to operational concerns are: The managerial
stage: i.e. to embed the CSR concepts within the organisation’s core management processes
by integrating responsible business practices into daily operations; The strategic stage: to in-
tegrate the CSR concepts into the organisation’s core business strategies by aligning CSR
concepts with strategy and process innovations.
Roberts (2003) also describes CSR adoption (Enquist et al., 2006) as a learning process,
similar to Zadek (2004). Roberts (2003) third manifestation of CSR, ‘the responsible director,’
is related to operational concerns and seeks to provide CSR with broad support by introduc-
ing new forms of internal social and environmental controls. These are coupled to rewards
and incentives that complement existing management accounting.

2.2.3 Encounter-related Concerns

In a service centre view, value in-use-use is a central part (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
Communicating the values which drive value is of major importance and will occur in dif-
ferent ways and via different media in a service business where it has to achieve a fit be-
tween internal and external communication (Edvardsson, Enquist and Hay, 2006).
The CSR initiative is about building trust in the stakeholder network (Enquist et al., 2006).
Kristensson Uggla (2002, p. 415), from a philosophical point of view, has tried to make the
concept of trust capital more understandable. He says: “Trust capital is a sharing capital and
can only coexist in a shared reality, as something that lodges relations in a communicative
relationship.” (ibid. p. 415) This capital can only be developed via a relationship with ‘the
other’ (Roberts, 2003). In the stakeholder perspective, the ethical dimension must always be
considered (Freeman, 1994) if trust is to develop within the relationship. The relationship, in
the service-centred view, is about value-creating where value is defined by, and co-created
with, the customers and other critical stakeholders (Enquist et al., 2006).
 60 Corporate Social Responsibility for Charity or for Service Business?

Encounter-related concerns involve these dialectic relations. Roberts’ (2003) final manifes-
tation is termed “dialogue with the vulnerable,” and this refers to “… the necessity and po-
tential of dialogue across the corporate boundary with those most vulnerable to the effects of
corporate conduct” (ibid. p. 263). But this dialogue is not only with the customers. GIE
companies also work together in collaboration with company-NGO engagement in “a social
compact” (Brugmann and Prahalad, 2007). Here, a more proactive Corporate Philanthropic can
also come into place (Porter and Kramer, 2000) and the company can be a “leading corpo-
rate citizen” (Waddock, 2006), both in local and global society.
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

3. Empirical Study

We have been studying the development of the Swedish furniture producer, IKEA, for
several years. This has involved: (i) the extensive perusal of documents; (ii) multiple inter-
views with IKEA managers; (iii) the collection of narratives about IKEA from the media,
the Internet, and books; (iv) personal observations at IKEA stores in Europe, Asia, and North
America; and (v) supervision of several masters’ theses on related subjects. At the same time
we have also start studying other, what we label, values based service firms, such as
Starbucks, H&M, and The Body Shop. We also have in our international master program,
which tutored by Enquist: developed case studies and master thesis around these compa-
nies and selected data in the same way as for IKEA. This extensive research involvement
has provided us with a solid basis for selecting representative empirical data for this
article.
In assessing the gaps between the public statements of these organisations: vision, mis-
sion statements, and code of conducts that was accessed from their documents and web-
sites, and their practices, we adopted the three concerns. Where all the companies will be
described from the three service operations concerns: business, operational and encounter.
The views of the activists/NGOs also described as a counter argument. As well, it is im-
perative to asses it based on the five stages of Zadek (2004). It is found that all the five
companies are beyond the “Compliance” stage and in the “managerial” and/or “strategic”
stages, which analysed in the operations concern. However, all the five companies are
working to practice CSR in reality and reaching the fifth “Civil” stage; as first movers
they also have been exposed to the critics of NGOs and activists. This creates for these
companies a potential for a positive relationship between increasing productivity and living
standards of their employees and other stakeholders, as well as political and social rights
and conditions (Sen, 1999).
 The Asian Journal on Quality / Vol. 9, No. 1 61

IKEA Starbucks H&M The Body Shop

Business- Vision: “To create a Mission Statement: Vision: “to bring Mission Statement:
related con- better day-to-day life - To provide a great fashion and quality - To dedicate our
cerns for many people” working environment at the best price.” business to the
Business concept: and to treat others Business concept: pursuit of social and
“To offer a wide with respect and “Our design and environmental change.
range of well- dignity. purchasing depart- - To creatively balance
designed, functional - To embrace ments create the the financial and
home furnishing diversity as an H&M collection human needs of our
products at prices so essential component and make it stakeholders.
low that as many of business. possible to offer - To courageously
people as possible - To apply the the latest fashions ensure that our
will be able to highest standards of and cosmetics with business is ecologically
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

afford them” excellence to the unbeatable value sustainable

Testament: The purchasing, at the best price.” - To meaningfully
strong culture of roasting, and fresh The H&M “Business contribute to the local,
IKEA is based on delivery of coffee. philosophy” which national and inter-
“shared values and - To enthusiastically involves ensuring national communities
meanings”. In this acquire satisfied and improving the in which we trade.
regard, the “Test- customers. quality of their - To passionately
ament of a Furniture - To contribute goods at the best campaign for the
Dealer” will be of positively to prices is rooted in protection of the
great importance in communities and a strong culture of environment, for
visualising those the environment. values and value human rights, and
values. - To recognize that creation. against animal testing.
profitability is - To narrowing the gap
essential to future between principle and
success. practice.
Operations- Code of conduct: Code of conduct: Code of conduct: Code of conduct: Body
related IWAY (The IKEA C.A.F.E. Practices Covering the Shop Community Trade
concerns Way on Purchasing (Coffee and Farmer working enviro- (CT) is about paying a
Home Furnishing Equity Practices) nment, child fair price for goods
Products). IKEA Guidelines for labour, fire safety, and paying fair wages
believes that it can working with coffee working hours, for labour. CT ensures
contribute towards farmers to ensure minimum wages that all five core values
steering suppliers high-quality coffee and the environment are addressed at once:
towards more com- and promote equitable It is to ensure that Community Trade, Self
petitive production, relationships with products are Esteem, Protecting the
improved working farmers, workers and produced under Planet, Human Rights
conditions, and a communities, as well ethical working and Opposing Animal
reduced enviro- as to protect the conditions and to Testing.
nmental impact. environment. protect environment. HRM and Climate:
HRM and Climate: HRM and Climate: HRM and Climate: The global HR
IKEA offers One of the main H&M believes in strategy recognises
co-workers opport- goals of Starbucks working with a set employees as the
unities and respon- mgmt is to create of values rather company’s most
sibility. Co-workers and provide a great than manuals. critical asset. It focuses
and leadership have working environment Basic values on providing a unique
an intertwined by promoting a include believing employment proposition
relationship. IKEA respectful workplace in people, team- that supports the
selects people who culture, fostering work, a fast pace company’s retail
are strong leaders diversity and of working and vision, respects its
and who embrace inclusion, taking care constant improve- social and environ-
 62 Corporate Social Responsibility for Charity or for Service Business?

the IKEA vision and of its partners’ ment. Offering mental mission, and
culture. (employees’) employees the enables employees to
Shared values define well-being, providing most competitive use and develop global
the IKEA company opportunities for and comprehensive skills.
culture. training and career benefits and
growth and ensuring compensation
a safe workplace. package available.
Encounter- Communicating: The Communicating: Communicating: Communicating: TBS
related values which drive “We’re not in the H&M makes is a customer-focused
concerns value are comm- coffee business shopping an easy business offering goods
unicated through serving people. We and pleasant via three retail channels:
advertising, publicity, are in the people experience through TBS stores, The Body
the Internet, an business serving qualified employ- Shop at Home™-
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

IKEA ‘customer coffee” It has ees while great home party experience,
club’, and directly in always been importance is and e-commerce.
IKEA stores using Starbucks partners attached to the Customers are always
customer placement (employees) that layout of the at the forefront of
and by co-workers have been able to stores, and location. everything we do, say
interacting with inspire the customer Also, communicating and deliver. We strive
customers. to come back. via advertising, to create a fantastic
Trust capital as a Trust capital as a the Internet and experience for ever-
global and local global and local the customer club. yone who shops at
corporate citizen: corporate citizen: Trust capital as a The Body Shop and
IKEA initiates and Starbucks’ success in global and local who works at The
supports a wide new and established corporate citizen: Body Shop.
range of activities markets hinges on H&M initiates and Trust capital as a
and projects, its ability to supports a wide global and local
globally as well as cultivate meaningful range of activities corporate citizen:
locally. IKEA relationships with and projects, The Body Shop is
mainly works to customers, local globally as well committed to allocating
improve health and community leaders, as locally. H&M a share of its profits
education, focusing and neighbours - mainly works to charities around the
on children and relationships that are towards poverty world.
women, and to built on trust. alleviation and TBS support a wide
protect the enviro- Starbucks works education, focusing range of charities and
nment where the hard in supporting on children, young communities directly
focus is on forestry. and encouraging its people, and through volunteering,
IKEA co-operates partners’ volunteer women. cash and making
with a number of efforts. Starbucks Environmental product donations. The
companies, trade stresses its protection focuses majority of charitable
unions and commitment to on chemical donations are
organisations corporate social avoidance and channelled through
throughout the responsibility and eco-labelling “The Body Shop
world. These communicates its products. H&M is Foundation,” founded
partnerships enable activities within the working in in 1989 as a way of
IKEA to share its company and cooperation with a distributing funds from
experiences and between its number of NGOs The Body Shop
accomplish more stakeholders to and initiatives like International plc and
than it could have create a responsible GRI and Amnesty its extended family.
done by working on environment for International.
its own with social future growth.
and environmental
issues.
 The Asian Journal on Quality / Vol. 9, No. 1 63

4. Discussion and Conclusion

What is the contribution made by the conceptual and theoretical framework of this article?
There is a positive relationship between CSR and profit in innovative firms, as we saw in
Xueming and Bhattacharya, (2006) based on secondary data where the relationship between
CSR, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value is investigated. The result of that article is of
acontextual nature but can be used as the input for a more contextualised analysis. We have
also learnt that today CSR is not for charity to doing good for doing good but more for
doing well. With this in mind, a descriptive and analytic framework has been developed as
a CSR business model. Using that CSR business model, our four companies, IKEA, Star-
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

bucks, H&M and the Body Shop, have been described and analysed.
What can be learnt (both theoretically and as regards practical implications) about CSR as
a proactive thinking/tool for value creation in the service business in this article from our
empirical findings from our four leading service companies where CSR is an important part
of the service logic? Berry et al. (2006) pointed out nine success drivers of Market-Creating
Service Innovations. We will use these nine drivers as our framework for describing and an-
alysing our CSR business cases to show that CSR drives innovative business.

4.1 A Scalable Business Model

All four companies have a scalable business model for their expansion success based on
different ways of triple bottom line thinking. Attractive offers in attractive stores, strong sup-
plier chains including social and environmental benefits, strong citizenship.

4.2 Comprehensive Customer-experience Management

All four companies have developed scripts for customer experience which are part of a
joint co-creating value process with the customer. In IKEA, it can be seen as customer
placement in the in-store showrooms (experience rooms) (Edvardsson et al., 2005) and will be
supported by the catalogue and the Internet. For Starbucks, it can be described as the Star-
bucks experience. H&M talks about shopping as an easy and pleasant experience while the
Body Shop talks about the fantastic experience. We can talk, in all four cases, about experi-
ence quality (Enquist, Edvardsson and Sebhatu Petros (2007).

4.3 Investment in Employee Performance

For both IKEA and Starbucks, the co-workers and partners, as is also the case for the
Body Shop and H&M, are of great importance for a strong corporate culture as regards living
the brand and sharing the values. High performance is about operational skills, cooperating
with others and sharing values and meanings. H&M employees are values-driven and, for the
 64 Corporate Social Responsibility for Charity or for Service Business?

Body Shop, the employees are the most important assets of the company. All four compa-
nies focus on investing in employee performance as a key strategy for company success.

4.4 Continued Operational Innovation

All four companies are retailers which control development processes such as design and
product/concept development, but which use suppliers for production. All four companies in-
vest heavily in logistics and stores and material/product know-how from a triple bottom line
perspective. All four companies have their own code of conduct to safeguard their social,
environmental, and quality standards.
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

4.5 Brand Differentiation

All four companies have very strong brands. We can talk about values-based service brands
(Edvardsson et al., 2006) since all four companies are driven by strong values.

4.6 Champions of Innovation

All four companies have had strong champions during their history. IKEA has Kamprad,
Starbucks has Schultz, H&M has its founder Erling Persson and later on his son Stefan
Persson, and finally the Body Shop has for several decades had its founder Anita Roddrick.
These champions of innovation have built a unique business concept in each company, which
has then been reproduced/recreated and further developed over decades through shared values
and shared meanings (Edvardsson and Enquist (2002).

4.7 Superior Customer Benefit

Superior benefit is not only for the customer. Value-in-use for the stakeholders of the firm
is of major importance in all four companies, where responsible local and global citizenship
(Waddock, 2006) is key for all four firms.

4.8 Affordability
All four companies offer affordable service solutions. The price strategy differs in all four
cases but each offering is still affordable.

4.9 Continued Strategic Innovations

All four companies’ business developments are based upon continued strategic innovations.
The innovative solutions often originate from smart and/or different solutions in environmental
and social areas.
 The Asian Journal on Quality / Vol. 9, No. 1 65

This article has been of an explorative nature whereby we have pointed out that CSR is
not for charity in order to do good but more of a strategy for innovative service business.

References

1. Andriof, J., S. Waddock, B. Husted, and S. Sutherland Rahman (eds) (2002), Unfolding
Stakeholder Thinking. Theory, Responsibility and Engagement, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
2. Berry, L. L.(1999), Discovering the Soul of Service, The Free Press. New York, USA.
3. Berry, L. L., Shankar, V., Turner Parish, J., Cadwallader, S., and Dotzel, D.(2006),
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

Creating New markets Through Service Innovation MIT Sloan Management Review Winter
2006.
4. Brugman Jeb and Prahalad C. K.(2007), Cocreating Business’s New Social Compact,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 80-90.
5. Carroll, A. B.(1991), The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral
Management of Organizational Stakeholders, Business Horizons, July-August, pp. 39-48.
6. Cramer, J.(2006), Corporate Social Responsibility and Globalisation: an action plan for
business, Green-Leaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
7. Edvardsson, B. and Enquist, B.(2002), THE IKEA SAGA-How Service Culture Drives
Service Strategy, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 153-186.
8. Edvardsson, B., Enquist, B., and Johnston, B.(2005), Co-creating Customer Value through
Hyperreality in the Pre-purchase Service Experience, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8,
No. 2, pp. 149-161.
9. Edvardsson, B., Enquist, B., and Hay, M.(2006), Values Based Service Brands: narratives
from IKEA, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2006, pp. 230-246.
10. Elkington, J.(2001), The Chrysalis Economy, How Citizen CEOs and Corporation can Fuse
Values and Value Creation, Capstone, Oxford.
11. Enquist, B., Johnsson, M., and Skålén, P.(2006), Adoption of Corporate Social Responsi-
bility-Incorporating a Stakeholder Perspective, Qualitative Research in Accounting and
Management, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 188-207.
12. Enquist, B., Edvardsson, B., and Petros Sebhatu, S.(2007), Values Based Service Quality
for Sustainable Business, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 385-403.
13. Freeman, R. E.(1994), The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions.
Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 409-421.
14. Friedman, M.(1970), The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profit. New
York Times Magazine, The New York Times Company, September 13.
15. Grant, C.(1991), Freidman Fallacies. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10, pp. 907-914.
16. Grönroos, C.(2000), Service Management and Marketing-A customer relationship manage-
 66 Corporate Social Responsibility for Charity or for Service Business?

ment approach Wiley, 2nd edition, Chichester.

17. Gummesson, Evert.(1999), Total Relationship Marketing Rethinking Marketing Management:
From 4Ps to 30Rs Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
18. Gummesson, E.(2006), “Many-to-Many Marketing as Grand Theory: A Nordic School
Contribution,” in Lusch, R. F and Vargo, S. L. (ed) (2006) The service Dominant Logic
of Marketing, M. E. Sharpe, Inc. New York, USA.
19. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M.(2001), Are the Strategic Stars Aligned for Your Corporate
Brand?, Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 128-134.
20. Ind, N.(2004), Living The Brand. How to transform every member of your organization
into a brand champion. Kogan Page, Second edition, London
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

21. Johnston, R. and Clark, G.(2001), Service Operations Management, Prentice Hall. London.
22. Konzelmann, Suzanne J., Wilkinson Frank, Craypo Charles, and Rabih Aridi(2005), The
Export of National Varieties of Capitalism: The Cases of Wal-Mart and Ikea, Centre for
Business Research, University of Cambridge Working Paper Vol. 314.
23. Kotler, P. and Lee, N.(2005), Corporate Social Responsibility. Doing the Most Good for
Your Company and Your Cause, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.
24. Kristensson Uggla, B.(2002), Slaget om verkligheten (The battle for reality), Brutus Östlings
Förlag, Stockholm.
25. Laczniak, G. R.(2006), “Some Societal and Ethical Dimensions of the Service-Dominant
Logic Perspective of Marketing,” in Lusch, R. F. and Vargo, S. L. (ed) (2006), The
service Dominant Logic of Marketing, M. E. Sharpe, Inc. New York, USA.
26. Lusch, R. F. and Vargo, S. L.(2006), The service Dominant Logic of Marketing, M. E.
Sharpe, Inc. New York, USA.
27. Palmisano, Samuel J.(2006), The Globally Integrated Enterprise, Foreign affairs, Vol. 85,
No. 3, pp. 127-136.
28. Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R.(2002), The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Phi-
lanthropy, Harvard Business Review, December 2002.
29. Pruzan, P.(1998), From Control to Values-Based Management and Accountability. Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, pp. 1379-1394.
30. Roberts, J.(2001), Corporate Governance and the Ethics of Narcissus Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 109-127.
31. Roberts, J.(2003), The Manufacture of Corporate Social Responsibility: Construction Cor-
porate Sensibility. Organization Ethics, Politics and Organizing, Vol. 10, No. 2, London:
Sage.
32. Schneider B. and White S. S.(2004), Service Quality: Research Perspectives, Thousand
Oaks, California, Sage publications series.
33. Sen, A.(1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
34. Shaw, C. and Ivens, J.(2002), Building Great Customer Experiences. Palgrave, London.
 The Asian Journal on Quality / Vol. 9, No. 1 67

35. Waddock, S.(2004), Creating Corporate Accountability Foundational Principles to Make

Corporate Citizenship Real Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50, pp. 313-327.
36. Waddock, S.(2006), Leading Corporate Citizens: Vision, Values, Value Added. McGraw-
Hill Higher Education, New York.
37. Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F.(2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic of Market-
ing,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, January, pp. 1-17.
38. Vogel, D.(2005), The Market for Virtue? The Business case for Corporate Social Res-
ponsibility, California Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 4, Summer 2005.
39. Vogel, D.(2005b), The Market for Virtue. The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social
Responsibility, Brooking Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)

40. Willmott, M.(2001), Citizen Brands Putting Society at the Heart of Your Business, Wiley,
New York.
41. Xueming, L. and Bhattacharya C. B.(2006), Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer
Satisfaction, and Market Value Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, October 2006, pp. 1-18.
42. Zadek, S.(2001), The Civil Corporation. The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship.
Earthscan and New Economics Foundation London.
43. Zadek, S.(2004), The Path to Corporate Responsibility, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82,
December, pp. 125-133.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Min Zhang, Biying Jin, G. Alan Wang, Thong Ngee Goh, Zhen He. 2014. A Study of Key Success Factors of
Service Enterprises in China. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
2. Bo Edvardsson, Bo Enquist. 2011. The service excellence and innovation model: Lessons from IKEA and other
service frontiers. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 22:5, 535-551. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 17:14 13 November 2014 (PT)