How CSR-experts legitimize through storytelling

(1)

The storytelling of new experts

How CSR-experts legitimize through

storytelling

Master’s Thesis 15 credits

Department of Business Studies

Uppsala University

Spring Semester of 2020

Date of Submission: 2020-06-03

Henrik Pettersson

Hanna Svensson

(2)

Abstract

The formal requirements of experts are diminishing, thus opening up for the expansion of new experts, who are gaining more influence in society. In contemporary society, all organizations are pressured to consider Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and are therefore dependent on the new experts within the field. However, the research remains underexplored. Building on research on new experts and storytelling, this thesis addresses how CSR-experts within organizations engage in storytelling to legitimize their expertise. A framework of four storytelling themes was made, and a qualitative case study conducted. Six interviews were carried out and documents made by the interviewees studied. The findings demonstrate that the CSR-experts engage in storytelling in line with the storytelling themes, but new findings could also be added to the themes. They engage in future-oriented storytelling, as well as storytelling concerning current problems and solutions, to legitimize the role of expertise today and to sustain it for the future, demonstrating how storytelling is a dynamic process taking place in everyday organizational life. However, to attain legitimacy, the study indicates that storytelling needs to be adjusted to the receiver in a successful manner, otherwise it may instead inhibit the legitimacy that the CSR-experts are trying to create.

(3)

Acknowledgment

Foremost, we wish to express our sincere appreciation to our supervisor, Professor Lena Zander, at the Department of Business Studies at Uppsala University, for the continuous support for our master thesis. She guided us with patience, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge.

We wish to thank all the interviewees, whose contribution was indeed a milestone in the completion of this thesis. Without their support, this thesis could not have reached its goal

Finally, we wish to express our deepest gratitude to our seminar colleagues. Their knowledge and advice were truly appreciated and invaluable to our study.

(4)

1. Introduction

Management ideas are increasingly in focus in contemporary society and have spread in research, academia, and practice (Hodgson, 2008; Sturdy, Werr, and Buono, 2009). The general standardization of organizations, that can be explained by global isomorphic pressures, has further facilitated the expansion of management logic (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall, 2002). Interrelated with the expansion of management logic is the expansion of experts, where members of society are constantly confronted with different experts and are expected to relate to their expertise (Nordengraaf, 2015; Furusten and Werr, 2016). However, the importance of formal requirements, such as predetermined knowledge with certain education and membership in professional associations, to act as experts, is fading. Therefore, traditional experts' dominant position is diminishing (Alvesson and Johansson, 2002; Furusten and Werr, 2016; Kipping, 2011).

New types of experts have emerged, and are gaining more influence in society (Furusten and Werr, 2016; Glückler and Armbrüster, 2003; Hodgson, 2008: Kipping, 2011). They lack formal credentials, and often have to create novel occupations and fields to enable them to implement and execute contemporary ideas (Bjerregaard and Jonasson, 2014; Furusten and Werr, 2016; Kipping, 2011). This further implies that the barrier for acting as an expert is blurring. That these new experts lack formal requirements creates uncertainty regarding their legitimacy. New experts are therefore constantly occupied with having to market their expertise and engage in different constructions of confidence-building to attain legitimacy and create an image of professionalism (Carlsen, 2006; Evetts, 2013; Glückler and Armbrüster, 2003; Furusten and Werr, 2016).

(6)

"Sharing of knowledge and experiences through narrative and anecdotes in order to communicate lessons, complex ideas, concepts, and causal connections'' (Soule and Wilson, 2002, p. 6).

Today, sharing experiences through stories is emerging as an efficient mechanism of knowledge sharing within organizations (Sole and Wilson, 2002). Storytelling focuses on the experience and emotions of individuals, thus acknowledging human habits and needs that quantitative and technical perspectives fail to recognize (Chlopczyk, 2017; Thier, 2018). Stories are found nested in all kinds of organizations, as in marketing and public relations (PR) (Kantola, 2016), communication (Wood, 2002), and coaching (Müller, 2017). New experts form stories to legitimize their professionalism as experts of the organizational environment (Bülow and Boje, 2015; Denning, 2006; Kantola, 2016). Exactly, how these new kinds of new experts create and sustain legitimacy around their expertise requires more research, particularly concerning experts that go beyond the scope of PR and organizational level attempts as brand image (Kipping, 2011).

1.1 Problematization

New types of experts had the possibility to create expertise around Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), because there were no official barriers to enter into the field, in contrast to fields of traditional experts with formal credentials (Brés and Gond, 2014; Christensen, Morsing, and Thyssen, 2015; Furusten and Werr, 2016; Windell, 2007). CSR can be defined as organizations’ economic, social, and environmental responsibility for their operations (Carroll, 1991; European Commission, 2020; Panapanaan et al., 2003; Van Marrewijk, 2003). However, research about CSR remains fragmented, because of the diverse disciplines and levels of analysis adopted, as well as there is no-agreed upon definition. This has practical implications and leads to challenges for how organizations are to work with CSR (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Carroll, 1991; Carroll and Shabana, 2010). Nonetheless, in contemporary society all organizations are pressured to consider CSR, and are therefore dependent on the new experts within the field (Freeman and Auster, 2011; Rasche and Gilbert, 2015).

(7)

their expertise. How these kinds of internal actors engage in storytelling remains underexplored within organizational studies (Maclean et al., 2012), especially storytelling in everyday settings (Kantola, 2016), despite their increased influence, as organizations’ due to the ambiguous nature of CSR are dependent on their CSR-expertise (Furusten and Werr, 2016; Glückler and Armbrüster, 2003; Hodgson, 2008: Kipping, 2011). Additionally, the importance of legitimizing CSR is widely acknowledged (Bondy, Moon, and Matten, 2012; Joutsenvirta, 2011; Mitra and Buzzanell, 2018) but the linguistic and cognitive dimension of attaining legitimacy through activities of sensemaking, rhetoric, and storytelling requires further research (Basu and Palazzo, 2008), particularly on an individual level (Mitra and Buzzanell, 2018). Considering the ambiguous character of CSR, it is said to foster several occupational rhetorics around the role of CSR-experts (Fine, 1996).

1.2 Purpose and research question

The purpose of this study is to increase the understanding of how new experts engage in storytelling to attain legitimacy around their expertise. This will be investigated by studying how employees hired as CSR-experts legitimize their expertise through everyday storytelling. The emphasis of this study is on the storytelling, and not on studying the concept of CSR in itself. Our research question is:

How do CSR-experts within organizations engage in storytelling to legitimize their expertise?

2. Literature overview

2.1 New experts

(8)

continuously engage in processes of legitimizing their expertise (Beaverstock et al., 2010; Furusten, 2013; Furusten and Werr, 2016; Glückler and Armbrüster, 2003; Kantola, 2016; Muzio et al., 2011). When looking at the development of consultants, research by Kipping (2011) indicates that the sources used by new experts to legitimize themselves have changed over time. During the development of the consultant industry, before the 1950s, it was essential to be closely interrelated to existing traditional professions. This association to, and collaboration with, traditional professionals was an important resource as it signaled legitimacy. It was also important to be interconnected to an already established professional reputation. For example, consultancies used PR to promote themselves as efficient engineers (Nelson, 1995) by hiring trained engineers and referred to a professional title in the firm name (Kipping, 2011). As the new experts became more accepted, they wanted to establish themselves as a more independent profession, and instead started to try to create a professional image of their own. This was mostly done by mimicking traditional professionals. Using similar internal organizing structures and titles for management became common (Alvesson, 2001; Alvesson and Robertson, 2006; Kipping, 2011). On an individual level, appearance and behavior were inspired by, for example, lawyers. Formal dress codes and standardized templates for documents became common (McKenna, 2006). Further, attempts at establishing professional bodies as associations were made, though without success (Furusten and Werr, 2016; Kipping, 2011).

Today, the importance of being associated with traditional professionals might not be as important, as their dominant position in society has decreased. A possible explanation for this has been the general shift from professional logic towards the market and management logic, resulting in opportunities for new experts (Grey, 1998; Kantola, 2016; Kipping, 2011). This might also explain the general shift from the sources new experts draw from. Yet, they still must engage in processes to legitimize their expertise and professionalism, even though it is a new kind of expertise resting on the coexistence of market and professional logics (Alvesson and Robertson, 2006; Kipping, 2011). Many new experts still, at some level, replicate established professional models to imbue legitimacy (Beaverstock et al., 2010), but they are also trying to legitimize their expertise by being associated to other actors than professionals, as influential businesses and individuals, media, as well as universities and business schools (Alvesson, 2001; Alvesson and Robertson, 2006; Glückler and Armbrüster, 2003; Kipping, 2011; Salas-Porras and Murray, 2017; Salles-Djelic, 2017). Testifying about the importance of the market logic is how many new experts try to construct a legitimate image by creating a positive reputation about organizational brands, through marketing and PR (Alvesson, 2001; Alvesson and Robertson, 2006).

(9)

(Evetts, 2013). Further, these new experts are constantly occupied with constructing a professional narrative and becoming legitimized, as they and their expertise, per definition are not institutionalized and taken for granted (Carlsen, 2006; Evetts, 2013; Glückler and Armbrüster, 2003; Furusten and Werr, 2016). The nature of these processes has received fairly little attention compared to the influence possessed by these new experts (Hodgson, 2008). Particularly more research is required of how processes of creating and sustaining legitimacy look like that go beyond the scope of PR and brand image attempts on an organizational level (Kipping, 2011).

2.1.1 CSR-experts

(10)

concept remains unexplored and fragmented within research due to the diverse disciplines studying it, and different levels of analysis adopted (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Carroll, 1991). Furthermore, there is no-agreed upon definition (Carroll and Shabana, 2010), giving practical implications, where, different definitions or metrics of CSR used (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Peloza, 2009), as well as other circumstances can affect how organizations work with CSR (Carroll and Shabana, 2010). This background might explain why an increasing number of organizations internalize their CSR-work and hire actors who are to be responsible for this work (Carollo and Guerci, 2017; Longoni, Golini, and Cagliano, 2014; Mitra and Buzzanell, 2018). These internal actors working with CSR can be seen as CSR-experts (Carollo and Guerci, 2017), implying that they as new experts need to legitimize their expertise.

Commonly, legitimacy building involves multiple means, where the form of storytelling in organizational studies, especially in everyday settings, remains underexplored (Kantola, 2016; Maclean et al., 2012). Furthermore, even though a complete literature review of CSR is not possible within this study and also is beyond its purpose, nonetheless, the ambiguous nature of CSR, within both research and practice, provides important background for the context CSR-experts work in. Regarding its ambiguous character, it is said to foster several occupational rhetorics around the role (Fine, 1996). The importance of legitimizing CSR is recognized (Bondy, Moon, and Matten 2012; Joutsenvirta, 2011), but the dimensions of how this is done through storytelling remains underexplored (Basu and Palazzo, 2008), especially on an individual level (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Gond et al., 2017; Mitra and Buzzanell, 2018).

2.2 Storytelling

(11)

(Reissner and Pagan, 2013, p. 5). Although this definition is not ubiquitous for all disciplines, it characterizes the elements of contemporary storytelling (Boje 2001; 2008; Denning, 2001).

The power and influence of storytelling as a natural, perceptive, and pervasive form of communication (Czarniawska, 1998; Gabriel, 2000) has not gone unnoticed within management (Denning, 2001; 2004; 2007). Organizational stories communicated as storytelling serve to inspire, educate, and help members to make sense of the organization (Thier, 2018). The stories help to legitimize the leadership, validate corporate culture through everyday examples, and provide a personal side to management (Raspa, 1999). Leadership tries to provide its audiences with an emotional connection and understanding of them on a personal level. When creating stories, there is a risk that storytellers are too goal-oriented in developing storytelling skills, thus focusing too strongly on the storytelling practice (Denning, 2001). Hence, the storyteller may fail to notice the participative nature of storytelling, where both the storyteller and listener are actively engaged (Barge, 2004; Boje, 2011; Czarniawska, 1994).

By investigating storytelling as an organizational practice, we can study how organizational actors use this technique to push for an outcome to become legitimized (Clegg et al., 2011). Although organizational actors may be without formal authority, they can influence what is happening in the organization through their storytelling, as seen in the case of new experts (Gabriel, 1995). Consequently, actors in different positions can challenge the power structures of the organization and the legitimacy of the management (Denning, 2001; Reissner and Pagan, 2013; Kelly, 1985; Suchman, 1995; Zinnerman and Zeitz, 2002).

The role of storytelling can be divided into three levels. Firstly, organizational macro-level stories (Clegg, 2011; Clegg, Kronberger, and Rhodes, 2005; Giola et al. 2000; Neuhauser, 1993), create an organizational identity through the shaping of all organizational actors and manage the meaning within an organization (Brown and Rhodes, 2005; Gioia, Schultz, and Corley, 2000; Reissner, 2008). Secondly, top management individuals, as a group of an organization, can use storytelling at a meso-level (Weick, 1995; 2001; 2009; Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld, 2005) to both purposely and perceptively guide organizational actors to grasp the organizational realities (Dunford and Jones; 2000; Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991; Hatch and Cuncliffe, 2006; MacKenzie, 2006). Thirdly, the role of micro-level storytelling for legitimizing the role of different individual actors (Barge, 2004; Denning, 2005). For this study, the emphasis is on the micro-level of storytelling as a legitimizing instrument for new experts.

2.2.1 Storytelling at the micro level

(12)

promote the identity of the actor, what is important to them, and how they operate (Gioia, Schultz, and Corley; 2000; Reissner and Pagan; 2013). Such form of storytelling is not linked to any specific position within the organization, but as a tool to create and maintain professional relationships through sharing personal experiences (Brown and Rhodes, 2005). Yet, organizational actors are often unaware of their own micro-level storytelling because it is a natural form of communication. Storytelling can take place at all organizational layers, regardless of the hierarchical level, between different organizational actors. The storytelling enables a form of trust between the organizational actors, subsequently the storyteller gains legitimacy with the organization (Barge, 2004; Boje, 2004; 2001; Bruner, 1986: Stohl and Redding, 1987; Fisher, 1989; Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes, 2002; Reissner and Pagan, 2013).

(13)

In order to conceptualize the storytelling at the micro-level of organizations, storytelling can be categorized into four different antenarritives (Kantola, 2016). These four antenarritives act as legitimizing factors for the role of new experts (Boje, 2001; Suchman, 1995; Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002). Firstly, the dark narratives of the past are linked to previous dominant narratives, which new experts redefine to legitimize their own story and role. Secondly, new experts seek to solve specific problems for new customer groups (Evetts, 2013; Kantola; 2016). Commonly, there is too large of a gap between the groups of management and employees. Thus, new experts act in a mediating role to synergize the organization (Vaara and Tierani, 2011). Thirdly, new experts use their own personal contacts to legitimize their expertise in the domain. Contacts can be used as a storytelling tool to advocate the importance of the actor for the organization. Fourthly, new experts advocate democracy and transparency to highlight their professional ethics. Consequently, the new experts justify their role by inventing new, positive ways of how they operate. Collectively, these four antenarratives construct a story of an ideology of professionalism, to advance their own cause. However, these four antenarratives were conducted as a framework for a study of PR-consultants (Kantola, 2016). Thus, this presents a challenge when applying in the context of internal CSR-experts. What argues for the framework being applicable, is that PR-consultants and CSR-experts share commonalities of being new experts (Carollo and Guerci, 2017; Furusten, 2013; Kantola, 2016).

The legitimacy-claiming of storytelling can be conceptualized in four different categories: “defying-the-odds (triumphing despite adversity); staying-the-course (persevering over the years); succeeding through talent (earning success through skill and application); and giving back to society (sharing success with others)” (Maclean et al., 2011, p. 10). These four common embedded themes within storytelling, showed the sensemaking and self-legitimating practices of business leaders (Maclean et al., 2011). Business leaders and new experts show similarities in that they both need external and internal validation of their roles; thus the framework could also be suitable for new experts (Boje, 2001; Furusten and Werr, 2016; Maclean et al., 2011; Suchman, 1995; Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002).

2.3 Theoretical framework

(14)

expertise around the field. An increasing number of organizations nowadays have internalized their work due to its ambiguous character, and the actors responsible for this work can be seen as CSR-experts. Further, the equivocal nature is said to foster several occupational rhetorics around the role of CSR-experts, and the importance of legitimizing CSR is emphasized. Though, research within both storytelling and CSR remains underexplored on a micro-level, especially in everyday settings. In order to answer the research question, the following storytelling themes illustrated in Table 1, that build on earlier research, have been formulated by the authors to support the collection and analysis of the study. Table 1. Storytelling themes made by the authors.

Storytelling themes

The problem: the unsustainable past Engage in storytelling that concerns how

unsustainable the organization was before in order to legitimize expertise.

The strategy: formalize the intangible Engage in storytelling to formalize the intangible concept of CSR to make it more concrete to legitimize expertise.

The solution: the CSR-expert Engage in storytelling concerning the CSR-expert’s past experience to legitimize expertise.

The benefits with CSR Engage in storytelling to advocate the benefits with CSR to legitimize expertise.

3. Method

3.1 Scientific approach and design

The choices of scientific approach and design that have been made, stem from how we understand reality, and how knowledge can be acquired. The former concerns the ontological stance and the latter the epistemological viewpoint. The foundation of this study was based on a subjectivist (also called constructivist) claim, meaning that the reality and its social phenomenon are socially constructed through the action and perception of social actors, as well as through interaction between them. The epistemological viewpoint chosen was the interpretivism, which was better suited as the purpose was to gain a better understanding of how new experts engage in everyday storytelling (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2009). The epistemology viewpoint understands knowledge as something that can be obtained by interpreting and seeking meaning to gathered data, rather than that the data has generated objective knowledge independent of the researcher. This implies that this study is affected by its researchers’ interpretations (O’Gorman and MacIntosh, 2015).

(15)

is appropriate when seeking to gain an increased understanding of a phenomenon (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2009), which in this study is how storytelling is used to legitimize expertise. Moreover, this study has been conducted with a case study approach, which often concerns studying a specific case, that may consist of a group, like the CSR-experts studied here (Bryman and Bell, 2012; Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). The case study approach is common within the business discipline (Eisenhardt, 1989), and suitable for answering questions concerning how something is, or, as in this study, how something (storytelling) is used (Yin, 2009). To conduct a study about such an ambiguous concept as storytelling, the point of departure was in existing research, leading to it obtaining a deductive character and excluding its contrast, the inductive. However, the aim of a deductive approach is commonly chosen to validate current theory, which does not lie in the interest of this study. Rather, the aim is to build on existing research to develop an understanding of how new experts engage in storytelling to legitimize themselves. This means that we are open to find new themes or keywords within storytelling, rather than only fitting our data to current acknowledged ones. As with the inductive, the deductive approach is an extremity, where most studies, like this, end up somewhere in between (Bryman and Bell, 2011). This is to be beneficial when studying fields that are underexplored, like the ones in this study, because one can discover new concepts derived from empirical findings that refine established research, and ought to be especially suitable when using a case study approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002).

3.2 Interviewees and industry selection

To fulfil the purpose of the study, a prerequisite for the interviewees was that they were working with CSR in their role of expertise. Therefore, the choice of interviewees was of a targeted characteristic for the case study. The selection was a non-probability sample, meaning that it was not possible to generalize to the population (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Yin, 2011). Nonetheless, the prerequisite did not ensure that the interviewed CSR-experts had a similar background, as there are no formal credentials within the domain of new experts. This might be seen both as a limitation of the study, but at the same time indicated that more knowledge was needed within the field to broaden the understanding of new experts.

(16)

By examining the annual report of Fastighetsvärlden (business magazine for the real estate and construction industry) (2020), who publish information about the largest organizations within the real estate and construction industry in Sweden, a list was conducted of organizations matching the criteria of being active within the industry. With the list as a basis, emails were sent to 21 companies in Mälardalen regarding participation in the study. This region was chosen due to its geographical proximity to the authors to facilitate conducting the interviews face to face. However, due to the current pandemic, meeting in person was not possible. Six of the contacted companies returned with answers that they were positive about participating.

3.3 Operationalization

The definitions of storytelling and CSR are highly disputed because of their comprehensive nature. Therefore, the two concepts have been conceptualized to enable the purpose of this study and mitigate confusion of ambiguity. Reissner and Pagan’s (2015) definition of storytelling was used because it characterized contemporary storytelling. To conceptualize the storytelling at the micro-level of organizations, storytelling was categorized into four different antenarritives (Kantola, 2016). Antenarratives are fragments of a not yet coherent story, meaning that together with storytelling, it is a part of the legitimizing process (Barge, 2004; Boje, 2001; Boje, Haley, and Saylors, 2015). To attain further depth in knowledge of the different legitimacy-claiming characteristics of storytelling, the study of Maclean et al. (2011) was used. Further studies that have inspired this study, in particular, are Barge (2004), Boje (2001), Carollo and Guerci (2017), Denning (2005), Evetts (2013), Furusten and Werr (2016), Gabriel (1995), Reissner and Pagan (2013), and Windell (2007). The CSR-work was defined as the work the interviewees relate to the concept, as previously discussed in section 3.2. The interviews began with general and open questions to understand the background of their expertise. The operationalization made by the authors, built on earlier research, was carried out to design an interview guide and make it possible to investigate how CSR-experts engaged in storytelling to legitimize their expertise. In Table 2, the operationalization is shown, meaning how the theories are connected to the interview guide. For the full interview guide, see Appendix 1.

(17)

Table 2. Operationalization of storytelling and CSR.

Themes Keywords* Example of questions

Individual CSR-work What are your responsibilities? What does your CSR-work consist of?

Storytelling themes* Tangible and intangible forms, Narratives, Antenarratives

What forms of communication do you use to motivate CSR? How do you use these forms of communication when dealing with the challenges of CSR?

The problem: the unsustainable past

Bad before, better nor, Advocating change, Commitment to change, Can make change happen

Have you motivated your work by discussing how bad it was before the commitments to CSR were made?

The strategy: formalize the intangible

Formalize the intangible concept of CSR, Package CSR to fit the organization, Provide concrete organizational plans

How do you formalize CSR within the organization?

Are more concrete plans easier to implement? Why/Why not? The solution: the CSR-expert Past experience, Education, Merit,

Talent, Personal contacts

Have you ever used earlier experience to motivate your expertise?

How do you want others in the company to perceive you? What do you do to instill this view? The benefits with CSR Trustworthy, Reputational aspects,

Giving back to society (e.g. charity), Professional ethics

Have you used the benefits of CSR to motivate your expertise or make a decision to be taken in line with your benefits?

* Built on earlier research by Evetts (2013), Kantola (2016), Maclean et al. (2012), and Windell (2007).

3.4 Data collection and analysis

3.4.1 Data collection

(18)

on earlier research. Initially, background and general questions were asked, before the questions more closely related to earlier research were asked. All questions asked have an open-ended character to facilitate the communication for both parties (Hatry, Newcomer, and Wholey, 2015). The open nature of the semi-structured interview form allows the authors to keep an open mind about the content of the data, which was suitable for this study where we were open to find new concepts to refine established research about storytelling on a micro-level (Bryman, 2012). Additionally, it enabled the interviews to be conducted in a flexible manner, where the questions could be asked in different orders, and additional questions, clarifications, and supplementary questions to the responses could be added. The interviewees were asked to exemplify in connection with their answers. The interview form also allowed the interviewees to, in an open way, and in their own words, describe their storytelling processes of legitimizing their expertise, without being influenced by leading questions (Bryman, 2012; Yin, 2009).

The interviewees were since the initial contact made by email aware that they and the organization they worked for were to be anonymous in this study. This was a requirement for some but was also initiated by the authors who hoped that it would lead to fewer feelings of restraint by the impact their answers might potentially have on their employer. Before the interviews were conducted, the authors got permission to audio record to facilitate the transcription. During the interviews we also made notes. Prior to the interviews, it was an important aspect for the authors to get a consensus on exact conditions regarding the interviews, to ensure that the interviewees felt comfortable. To in this way foster a safe interview environment which tends to make the interviewees more inclined to give access to their ‘inner world’, and a perception of their social reality (Alvesson, 2003). A brief introduction of the ethical considerations, and the purpose of the study was also given.

(19)

Table 3. Information about the interviewees.

Pseudonym Working title/information

Work experience Employer Interview place Interview length and date Anna (Interviewee 1) Head of CSR-department

Six years in her current role and 30 years of experience in 15 different roles, such as manager of finance, in the organization.

European construction company

Phone call 35 minutes 23/4-2020 Beatrice (Interviewee 2) Head of the organization's CSR-work **

One and a half years’ experience in her current role. Previously, she has a background as head of CSR for a logistics and

transportation company. Local construction company Video conference 40 minutes 27/4-2020 Carl (Interviewee 3) Head of the organization's CSR-work

Four years of experience in his current role. Totally ten years of experiences in different CSR roles in other organizations.

Nordic real estate company Video conference 59 minutes 28/4 -2020 Daniella (Interviewee 4) Head of CSR-department

Three months of experience in her current role. Twelve years of experience as head of CSR for another real estate company.

European real estate company Video conference 39 minutes 28/4 -2020 Ella (Interviewee 5) Head of the organization's CSR-work **

Eleven years of experience in her current role. Previously she has been CMO, head of operations, and director of administration.

National real estate company Video conference 53 minutes 29/4 - 2020 Freya (Interviewee 6) Head of the organization's social CSR-work

Five months in her current role. Four years as head of communications, within the same organization. National construction company Video conference 46 minutes 5/5-2020

* Pseudonyms used to maintain their anonymity.

** The only one explicitly working with CSR in the organization.

The secondary data consist of documents made by the interviewed CSR-experts. As emphasized earlier, storytelling can, except for taking on a verbal form, also take on a written one. The authors asked the interviewees for access to documents made by them which they viewed as means to legitimize their expertise. Information about the documents is provided in Table 4.

(20)

Table 4. Documents provided by the interviewees.

Document (by) Content (pages/length) Storytelling theme

Document 1 (Anna) Report about CSR-achievements (3 pages)

Document 2 (Carl) Annual report (2019) about improvements connected to CSR-initiatives (12 pages)

Document 3 (Daniella) Presentation about consequences of staying unsustainable (5 pages)

Document 4 (Daniella) Decision-making model (including CSR) (1 page)

The strategy: formalize the intangible

Document 5 (Carl) Presentation about long-term CSR-goals (5 pages)

The solution: the CSR-expert

Document 6 (Carl) Sustainability report 2018 (22 pages)

The solution: the CSR-expert

Document 7 (Ella) Presentation about a successful project (financial, environmental, and social) (5 pages)

The benefits with CSR

Document 8 (Carl) Presentation for internal CSR-education, emphasizing benefits with CSR (10 pages)

Document 9 (Freya) Movie showing successful CSR-projects (4 minutes)

3.4.2 Data analysis

(21)

purpose and scientific design, open for responses that did not fit with the predetermined themes (Yin, 2009). The verbal and non-verbal storytelling that could not be associated with the keywords but anyway seemed relevant for the study resulted in new keywords. These could be related to the themes.

3.5. Ethical considerations

The study was conducted based on fundamental ethical considerations. The data collection was in accordance with the guidelines of The Swedish Research Council (2017) for ethical research practice and Bryman and Bell’s (2011) research requirements, both for the data collection and framing of the study. The interviews began with explaining to the interviewees the different ethical considerations which formed the basis for the study and its purpose (information requirement). The aim was to gain the interviewees’ confidence, which is the basis for an open and truthful interview (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). The interviewees were informed that they only needed to respond to the questions that they felt comfortable to answer, and the option of not answering was always an acceptable choice (consent requirement). The interviewees were informed that the collected data material was only used for the study (usage requirement). Further, the interviewees were informed of how and where the data material from the interviews was used and the possibility of answering anonymously for the study (confidentiality and anonymity requirement) (Bryman and Bell, 2011).

4. Findings and analysis

4.1 Storytelling themes

(22)

Table 5. Storytelling themes used by CSR-experts.

Storytelling themes Keywords*

The problem: the unsustainable past “Bad before, better now”, Advocating change, Commitment to change, Can make change happen,

Emphasize risks, Adjust to the receiver

The strategy: formalize the intangible Formalize the intangible concept of CSR, Package CSR to fit the organization, Provide concrete organizational plans, Adjust to the receiver

The solution: the CSR-expert Past experience, Education, Merit, Talent, Personal contacts (old and creating new): External legitimate

actors and Internal legitimate actors, Build trust, Business logic, Adjust to the receiver

The benefits with CSR The ethical approach

Trustworthy, Giving back to society (e.g. charity), Professional ethics, Adjust to the receiver

The business approach

Reputational aspects, Financial gain, Facilitate for

employees, Competitive advantage, Attract and keep talent, Adjust to the receiver

* New keywords in italic.

4.1.1 The problem: the unsustainable past

All of the six interviewees use storytelling that can be connected to the keywords relating to the theme The problem: the unsustainable past. Two new keywords can be added to the theme, ‘Emphasize risks’ and ‘Adjust to the receiver’.

(23)

“The staff who worked there were very affected. Before they threw stones, threatened staff, but when we made this effort, the customers' living environment improved very quickly and also the staff’s work situation. All were cheering, and thought it was fantastic […] The area does not have as much relocation, damage or calls from the police, ambulance or fire department. It simply became a better living environment for our customers […] Everything bad that had happened disappeared within the first week” (Freya, National construction company)

Freya highlights that using storytelling to emphasize improvements is essential to legitimize her expertise as her role is not associated with a budget but rather has to get approved on a project basis. Further, Carl (the head of the organization’s CSR-work in a Nordic real estate company) makes an annual report (document 2) to illustrate the sustainable improvements he and his colleagues at the CSR-department initiatives have contributed to, which is an example of non-verbal storytelling. This is sent out internally but also presented externally on their website. According to Carl, it is necessary to advocate the improvements in the storytelling:

“It is important to compare and see that you have become better, otherwise it is easy to forget in your everyday work. We [the CSR-department] try to be clear in showing what we have done and what it means. Compared to 20 years ago, there is a huge difference, which is important to bring attention to.” (Carl, Nordic real estate company)

The interviewees do not exclusively use storytelling relating to the keyword ‘Bad before, better now’ to advocate the unsustainable past to attain legitimacy and achieve a positive view on their role but further contextualize the difference they as experts can make by comparing to the present, which contains examples of improvements. This differs from Kantola’s (2016) study about how PR-consultants engaged in storytelling to paint the past as dark to demonstrate their current roles as positive and prevent being associated with previous issues. A possible explanation for the more exhaustive storytelling the CSR-experts engage in is that they work with such an ambiguous concept as CSR, where more concrete examples might be necessary to attain legitimacy.

Carl (Nordic real estate company) uses storytelling which can be related to the keyword ‘Commitment to change’ to legitimize his expertise, by following up to make sure implemented routines are followed in practice. He also uses storytelling to advocate the reasons for why he needs information, as its necessity for the sustainability report. Beatrice (the head of the CSR-work at a Local construction company) uses storytelling to legitimize her role that illustrates the keyword ‘Commitment to change’ to colleagues and management when presenting a new idea:

(24)

company before my own […] in that way I try to legitimize myself.” (Beatrice, Local construction company)

Moreover, the interviewees do not only refer to the unsustainable past to legitimize their expertise. A new keyword is ‘Emphasize risks’ that consist of future oriented storytelling and the risks associated with not listening to the experts and not giving them the possibility to keep improving the CSR-work. An illustration of this is the non-verbal storytelling form Daniella (head of the CSR department at a European real estate company) uses for presentations, (document 3 by Daniella):

“In presentations for new ideas, in meetings, I reference BNP's global warming reports, and what happens if we do not reach their goals […] to show what affects it will have if we do not do more.” (Daniella, European real estate company)

Carl engages in similar storytelling but also uses risks that are more closely related to the company. Beatrice engages in similar storytelling:

“If we are not in the forefront or work actively with CSR, we will not be able to win contracts or get other clients on the hook, so to speak.” (Beatrice, Local construction company)

Relating to more specific risks can also be connected to another storytelling theme, namely The strategy: formalize the intangible, and the keyword ‘Package CSR to fit the organization’ in particular. Using their expertise to illustrate more specific risks might be a way to connect to the keyword ‘Advocate change’, as change is thereby motivated by the risk associated with not evolving. The new keyword ‘Emphasize risks’ is by Carl used as an extension to storytelling regarding the keyword ‘Bad before, better now’, which might be to first attain legitimacy for completed achievements and then legitimize his expertise as relevant for the future as well. Another difference between general risks and company-level risks, is that the former emphasize more ethical aspects, as environmental issues, while the latter concerns more business related issues, as not being able to attract customers. When one kind of risk is presented before the other, it may be explained by another new keyword, namely ‘Adjust to the receiver’. Anna exemplifies:

“I bring up different risks if I talk to the CFO or someone else. To get the attention of the CFO, financial risks are especially important.” (Anna, European construction company)

The keyword ‘Adjust to the receiver’ can also be associated with two of the interviewees’ (Beatrice and Daniella) storytelling relating to this theme. Both address this to be a problem where their verbal storytelling attempts have sometimes not been successful as legitimizing means. What Beatrice explains can be connected to the aforementioned new keyword, as well as the new keyword ’Emphasize risks’:

(25)

[experience] do not understand. Sometimes I do not understand how they are unable to understand, which can lead to a conflict.” (Beatrice, Local construction company)

Daniella discusses that she needs to think about how to bring up CSR-questions in different ways depending on who is attending a meeting. However, this new keyword can also be related to the storytelling of Beatrice and Carl concerning ‘Emphasizing risks’, as they both describe risks that can be related to the company when they have the board or management as the receiver of their storytelling, when engaging with other actors, other risks might be emphasized. This implies that it is essential to possess information about the receiver to be able to adjust the storytelling to him or her. Also, if the adjusting of the storytelling does not succeed, it might have the opposite effect, namely that it rather might counteract the legitimacy that the CSR-experts are trying to create around their expertise. One explanation for why Beatrice and Daniella perceive it difficult regarding the new keyword to ‘Adjust the storytelling’ to the receiver might be that they both are new within their companies. Contrasting to Beatrice and Daniella, the other interviewees had experiences from previous internal roles. Interestingly, this might be an enabling factor to achieve legitimacy by being able to ‘Adjust to the receiver’ in a relevant matter.

4.1.2 The strategy: formalize the intangible

All of the six interviewees’ storytelling can be related to the theme The strategy: formalize the intangible, and is understood as crucial in contemporary organizations. Except for the keywords built on earlier research, one new keyword could be identified, ‘Adjust to the receiver’.

As CSR may be considered abstract, the interviewees describe how they use storytelling relating to the three keywords ‘Formalize the intangible concept of CSR’, ‘Package CSR to fit the organization’, and ‘Provide concrete organizational plans’, in order to attain legitimacy. Daniella (European real estate company) explains further regarding the keyword ‘Formalizes the concept of CSR’ for colleagues in the organization:

"I try to explain it as long-term thinking for the employees and customers, and how CSR is central for the social, economic and environmental aspects of the organization's value." (Daniella, European real estate company)

To increase the understanding of CSR and the CSR-experts’ role, it is characterized as something holistic and part of the business plan. All of the interviewee's argue that CSR is not something the organization can choose to do, but something that is required to survive long-term. The interviewees want CSR to go from something abstract and distant, into a concept that is relatable for the internal actors, connecting to the keyword ‘Formalize the intangible concept of CSR’, which is in line with earlier research where new experts to solve specific problems tried to make them concrete (Kantola, 2016). Carl elaborates:

(26)

different CSR-factors, so our personnel can see them as something relatable that they can affect. We follow up on these parameters to see if they are improving according to plan." (Carl, Nordic real estate company)

Emphasizing that the storytelling used for legitimizing CSR is dependent on being formalized into something tangible for the organizational actors. By formalizing the concept of CSR into tangibles, it creates a presence in the organization. Thus, it becomes harder to not acknowledge CSR, and the CSR-expert might attain legitimacy long-term. The different parameters that Carl describes may be a way of providing a positive view of CSR and the CSR-expert because everyone can see what the CSR-expert’s role adds to the organization. The CSR-experts provide the two keywords of ‘Concrete organizational plans’ and ‘Packages CSR to fit the organization’, with plans that are simplified and more related to the world of the internal actors. This is similar to what Windell (2007) explained in regards to CSR-consultants, that they convinced organizations that their plans would enhance the efficiency and utilization of the organization.

Further, Freya (National construction company) begins broadly defining CSR through the UN's initiative of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to illustrate that it is not merely bound to the organization. Thereafter, Freya explains to the receiver, why her role is necessary for the organization, and how her work helps the organization to contribute to the UN's goals and the organization's own goals. This can be connected to the new keyword ‘Adjusting to the receiver’, by using different storytelling for different organizational actors. Freya reasons:

"You have to create an emotional connection when you are working with CSR. There is a large difference if you are speaking to executive management or to the collar workers. The blue-collar workers have to see a positive effect on their work environment and the executives are more enthusiastic for the long-term. Therefore, you need to argue in different ways depending on the audience." (Freya, National construction company)

The connection that Freya describes is Adjusted to receivers on different hierarchical levels. The workers may be more susceptible to storytelling of CSR, which affects their imminent future. Contrasting, she suggests that management is more responsive to storytelling, with a long-term focus. In order for Freya to gain legitimacy from other actors, she implies the use of the new keyword ‘Adjust to the receiver’ as important. Anna, Daniella and Ella added that it is crucial to use the economic characteristics of CSR to make the concept more tangible and more natural to grasp for the receiver. Daniella shares what she views as the two main tangible characteristics of CSR, and their importance in storytelling:

(27)

Moreover, Daniella highlights the importance of communicating these arguments to the management team early on in the decision-making process to gain traction and not be overlooked. The storytelling was done in both a verbal and a non-verbal manner (document 4). Notably, she mentions:

"I have introduced the CSR-questions earlier in the organizational processes. We have a new decision-making model centered around CSR, quality, and cost, where the different elements are equally important in the decisions. I believe this is going to help, because all of the decision-making within the organization now has to include the CSR-aspect and how the decision affects the CSR-agenda." (Daniella, European real estate company)

The reasoning by Daniella is connected to the keyword ‘Providing concrete organizational plans’. The response from Daniella suggests that the organization is including CSR in its business model. Thus, Daniella’s position as a new expert could be assumed to be internally legitimate, as the organization management recognizes her in a role of expertise. The assumed acknowledgment of her as an expert can be linked to the implementation of a business model that is coherent with her counsel for CSR. Consequently, the keyword ‘Providing concrete plans’ in the storytelling can explain how CSR-experts are recognized internally by the management team.

Furthermore, regarding the keyword ‘Package CSR to fit the organization’, all of the interviewees highlight the importance of setting CSR-goals that fit the organization. Carl, for instance, shared that he uses verbal and non-verbal storytelling (PowerPoint presentation (document 5) and a sustainability report (document 6)):

"We have to be clear and concrete, tangible sort of. We have a long-term goal to 2030 be climate neutral, and we have recently started to look into more parts of it. An example of that we have to be more concrete, is that we need to have a clear goal orientation, measurability, and a clear agenda. " (Carl, Nordic real estate company)

All interviewees engage in storytelling containing plans that are more concrete and long-term oriented. However, as previously discussed, the concept of CSR is often abstract; therefore, the storytelling might be connected to the keyword ‘Adjusted to the receiver’, which may be central for gaining legitimacy as a new expert. Commonly, a CSR-consultant has to concretize the intangible CSR into something tangible on a general level, to seek validation in their role, as discussed by Windell (2007). In contrast, the interviewees have to adjust CSR internally on an organization level. Hence, the interviewees’ storytelling is adjusted to their specific context, in contrast to the external consultant who used a more general framework for storytelling, as expressed by Windell (2007).

(28)

storytelling with financial terminology to a CFO, who at first did not approve of her suggestion in a project:

"In my opinion, it became apparent that the CFO suddenly was more involved in the mindset. It was a great difference when we could calculate in actual numbers on what the CSR-work gave, because of our green finances […] I had to bring up facts to compare and provide numbers on the differences between concrete and wood in the choice of material for a new construction project." (Ella, National real estate company)

Different obstacles are identified relating to the CSR-experts. The interviewees are often met with adversity towards their agenda and role, and they continuously use different forms of storytelling to motivate and concretize CSR and their role in the organization. These legitimacy-claiming aspects that the CSR-experts use in their storytelling increases their external validation through defying the critics, which is in line with earlier research by Maclean et al. (2011) who investigated business leaders' storytelling to attain legitimacy. This implies that the CSR-experts show persistence in convincing the organizational actors that CSR is of value for organizations. Some organizational issues are reduced into specific problems that the CSR-expert can solve through CSR. All departments in an organization have different types of problems, and the CSR-experts use storytelling to present a solution, with, for example, financial arguments built on CSR-parameters. As CSR can affect all parts of an organization, the CSR-experts can address these problems with a mediating role in the organization. This is explained by Daniella:

"An argument for engaging in CSR is to be successful and prosperous. We often try to explain that CSR repays itself, which we show with different reports that legitimize our argument. We [the CSR-department] are very sought after in projects and co-operations between departments." (Daniella, European real estate company)

4.1.3 The solution: the CSR-expert

All of the interviewees use storytelling relating to the theme The solution: the CSR expert, and use the different keywords associated with this theme. However, the interviewees’ storytelling also illustrate four new keywords that can be categorized into the theme built on earlier research. The following new keywords are identified throughout the interviews, and present new insights to the theme: ‘Build trust’, ‘Business logic’, and ‘Adjust to the receiver’. Further, the keyword ‘Personal contacts’ could be expanded as containing both ‘old and creating new personal contacts’, as well as referring to ‘External legitimate actors’ and/or ‘Internal legitimate actors’.

(29)

"I feel like many of the other departments want to collaborate and involve our CSR-work in their processes. I have an educational background, and for me, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the different cases in our organization regarding CSR." (Daniella, European real estate company)

Likewise, Beatrice (Local construction company) refers to the keywords ‘Past experience’, concerning work, ‘Education’, and ‘Merit’, frequently in her storytelling:

"I have worked in a big organization within the logistics sector. For me, the previous experiences are what defines my expertise. If you have never been on the labor market, you could have expertise because of your education; however, if you can combine that with working with these CSR-questions, it creates a more authentic expertise. I often lean on my previous experience of working with people in management positions […] Our board and CEO are the driving factor in the different CSR processes, which creates more weight in my position. Their support is necessary for CSR even to be possible to pursue and communicate CSR in an organization." (Beatrice, Local construction company)

Further, Beatrice engages in storytelling that can be related to a new keyword of importance, called ‘Business logic’. Noticeably, she also explains the importance of the keyword ‘Internal legitimate actors’ to motivate CSR in internal communications. Internal support of, for example, the CEO, is emphasized by all of the interviewees as an important factor for legitimizing their CSR-expertise, as it can be used in their storytelling.

Previously, the studies of Maclean et al. (2012) and Kantola (2016) encountered ‘Personal contacts’ as an important keyword for new experts gaining legitimacy in their role. ‘Personal contacts’ included contacts from past experiences, such as work and extracurricular activities. The findings in this study point towards ‘Personal contacts’ as a dynamic factor, where creating new one’s is an equally important factor as already established contacts. Additionally, all of the interviewees’ answers regarding ‘Personal contacts’ suggests that the keyword should be expanded to include both internal and external (‘Internal legitimate actors’ and ‘External legitimate contacts’). Carl, discusses how storytelling, both verbal and non-verbal (PowerPoint presentation (document 5) and a sustainability report (document 6)), in connection to the two keywords ‘External legitimate actors’ and ‘Past experience’ legitimize:

"I use experience and research to show that it is not just me making something up, but there is research indicating this. We do not do things to mess with people, but rather we do it because we believe it is good for the environment, for the company, and our wallet." (Carl, Nordic real estate company)

(30)

authenticity to his storytelling, because it shows support by an ‘External legitimate actor’ (keyword). Additionally, by referring to research, a CSR-expert could perhaps be perceived as well prepared on the matter, increasing the possibility of a more receptive receiver. Sharing ‘Past experience’ (keyword) is a way of lowering the barriers between different actors, making the CSR-expert more relatable for other organizational actors. Hence, the storytelling enables actors to share experiences, referring to the two keywords ‘Adjusting to the receiver’ and ‘Personal contacts’ (creating new). CSR-consultants are outsourced actors without personal ties to the organization (as discussed by Windell (2007)), thus they may not be as familiar with company culture as internal CSR-experts. Therefore, CSR-consultants may not be as internally legitimate as CSR-experts because they are not as relatable for the organizational actors, making it more difficult to ‘Adjust to the receiver’ (keyword). Freya (National construction company) points out the importance of being able to use the two keywords ‘Build trust’, and referring to ‘External legitimate actors’ for her role in her storytelling:

“I spoke to different people with a background in research and also people experienced in the public sector, in how to transform a public environment into a more sustainable place to be around.” (Freya, National construction company)

Moreover, Daniella (European real estate company) expresses how the CEO’s support helps to legitimize her role:

“Our CEO is very thorough in explaining how the CSR-issues are a vital part of our organization’s future.” (Daniella, European real estate company)

The expanded keyword of ‘Personal contacts’, including ‘Internal legitimate actors’, was found in all interviews. Carl reasons that it is important to be legitimate in the eyes of the board:

“We often need to collect information from other departments, for example, for the sustainability report, but also because the board wants the information from us.” (Carl, Nordic real estate company)

Moreover, the keyword ‘Past experience’ may be essential to gain legitimacy as a CSR-expert. Anna and Ella have ‘Past experience’ as manager of finance and head of operations of their respective organization. Anna describes why this is of importance for storytelling:

"I have a financial background; therefore, I do not experience challenges with my communication with colleagues in other departments. Although, in my opinion, people who do not have the financial background can struggle in a CSR-position because they do not have the financial toolset to communicate in the right business language." (Anna, European construction company)

(31)

‘Business logic’, and ’Merit’. Both Anna and Ella have held senior management positions within their organizations, which is perceived as traditionally legitimate roles of an organization. Additionally, a possible explanation is the time aspect of being employed by the same organization for 30 (Anna), respectively 20 years (Ella). Hence, regarding the keyword of ‘Past experience’, working in the same organization in multiple different positions, suggests increased in-depth understanding of the ‘Business logic’ (keyword) of the particular organization. Although Beatrice, Carl and Freya have the keyword ‘Merit’ from a variety of positions, they have not previously held a financial position. Interestingly, Daniella points out that she has a high level of influence in the organization, but in comparison to Beatrice, Carl and Freya, she has over 20 years of ’Past experience’ in different heads of CSR-positions. Being head of CSR and connected to the board may present a better understanding of the keyword ‘Business logic’ because it entails being involved in more fields of the organization. Consequently, the different kinds of recognition that the interviewees perceive, can possibly be explained by the keywords ‘Past experience’ and ‘Merit’. Ella (National real estate company) elaborates on the keyword of ‘Business logic’ that she uses in her storytelling:

“I believe that my past experience is positive, because it enabled me to get a broad knowledge and understanding of the organization’s business. I believe that this is a vital factor for when you work with CSR because you understand the core business in the organization. Thus, it is easier to push for your case, because you come from a background of a business perspective that the senior-level executives can relate to, and not from a ‘save the world point of view’. Therefore, I am perceived as more serious in my role.” (Ella, National real estate company)

Moreover, Freya argues for the importance of the keyword ‘Talent’ (Maclean et al., 2011) for a CSR-expert, with a focus on presence and drive to succeed in the role. Noticeably, all of the interviewees explain that in their position, it is essential to have a presence, through being available to colleagues when they have questions regarding CSR. One of the benefits of being open can be related to the keyword ‘Personal contacts (old and creating new)’, because it enables the creation of new contacts. The openness that the CSR-experts exercise towards their colleagues may set a tone for an environment where storytelling can thrive, as spontaneity and naturality may increase in the interactions between different organizational actors. The presence of a CSR-expert and increased storytelling creates and maintains professional relationships through sharing ‘Personal experiences’. Beatrice (Local construction company) explains similarities with the expanded keyword ‘Personal contacts’ (creating new), on different hierarchical levels:

"I chat with colleagues to create relationships with other departments, which helps my work […] I have a shareholder dialog that is rooted in the board, who give me input on what questions to ask in the dialog." (Beatrice, Local construction company)

(32)

"As the work of a CSR-expert is questioned by other employees in the construction business, there is a need for personal contacts that can help. From my background, I have contacts, in other organizations, and in the municipality. Without my connections, it would be challenging to gain the same recognition and impact." (Freya, National construction company)

Further, a new keyword of ‘Building trust’ to increase the receptiveness of their storytelling emerges. Freya exemplifies why the keyword is essential:

"Our CEO is a driving factor in our CSR-agenda, and he really wanted me to have this particular role. He gave me all the tools to succeed in the role, but it is apparent that the organization's CSR-ambitions are very dependent on the support of executive management." (Freya, National construction company)

Her answer suggests that relationships with already established actors, such as the CEO, may be important to become legitimate within the organization. All of the interviewees give similar responses describing how support from the CEO or the board is vital to be able to exercise influence as a CSR-expert. Without the ‘Personal contacts’ of ‘Internal legitimate actors’ and ‘External legitimate actors’, the CSR-experts would struggle in attaining influence. As Freya puts it:

“I would say that relationships are vital, without them I would only be an anonymous white-collar worker that would vanish in the masses.” (Freya, National construction company) Ella explains that the relationship to the management team could be a form of symbolic value for her role:

“The question if the head of CSR is on the management team, could be a form of a symbolic question, because it communicates a strong argument towards a person that is an outsider of the organization. The person might resonate that the organization is more sincere in its CSR-work if they have included the head of CSR on their management team.” (Ella, National real estate company)

(33)

"There is a huge difference in how I use communications to the internal actors. To the new employees in the introduction program, I tell them of our CSR-ambitions as an organization and our expectations on them. [...] For the management they want more financial metrics, on how it creates value long-term." (Ella, National real estate company)

The material from the interviewees’ suggest that the managerial organizational actors may be more receptive to the storytelling of the CSR-experts, as argued by Carollo and Guerci (2017). ‘Adjusting the receiver’ is a recurring new keyword to all the different themes of storytelling. In this theme, all of the interviewees show tendencies of adjusting their storytelling to the receiver to become more legitimate. Ella tries to make her receiver feel enthusiastic and engaged for CSR, which is a way of involving the audience through storytelling. Ella’s storytelling strives to create an understanding for the CSR, therefore, legitimating her in the role of a CSR-expert.

4.1.4 The benefits with CSR

To the theme The benefits with CSR, all six interviewees can be identified as engaging in storytelling to legitimize their expertise associated with its keywords. Adding to the keywords built on earlier research, five new ones could be found: ‘Financial gain’, ‘Facilitate for employees’, ‘Competitive advantage’, ‘Attract and keep talent’, and ‘Adjust to the receiver’. The keywords used in the interviewees’ storytelling could be categorized into two different subthemes, namely The ethical approach and The business approach. The names of the subthemes are inspired by Carroll (1991) who distinguished the financial from the ethical benefits associated with CSR-work.

Ella (National real estate company) discusses how she uses storytelling relating to the two keywords ‘Trustworthy’ and ‘Professional ethics’, which are associated with the new subtheme The ethical approach. An example:

“We [the CSR-department] have analyzed very carefully if there is a risk that we in some way will harm the environment, people, or society where we operate. And I always discuss this in a very honest, open way within the company, to explain where we are not sustainable. And then I say what we can do about it [...] to get others to listen, it is important that they believe I am telling the truth.” (Ella, National real estate company)

How CSR-experts legitimize through storytelling

The storytelling of new experts