Key Aspects of Implementing a Corporate Sustainability ...

Key Aspects of Implementing a

Corporate Sustainability Strategy in a

Decentralized Organization

A Case Study

Master’s Thesis 15 credits

Department of Business Studies

Uppsala University

Spring Semester of 2019

Date of Submission: 2019-06-05

Dan Bäversten

Maja Nordström

Supervisor: Göran Nilsson

Abstract

Companies are considered as central actors towards a more sustainable society. Implementing

a sustainability strategy is seen as an effective way for corporations to take responsibility and

meet the society’s expectations. Different factors have been identified to affect the

implementation of a sustainability strategy. The purpose of this thesis is therefore to add to the

concept of strategy implementation and how organizational structure, organizational culture

and internal communication affect the implementation process. A qualitative case study has

been chosen to answer the research question where we conducted semi-structured interviews

with employees at various positions in the case company. Our result revealed that a company’s

sustainability strategy can be implemented even if the internal communication is weak.

However, we suggest that an organizational culture that is promoting the employees to feel

committed to the strategy will have a positive impact on the implementation process. Finally,

we also advocate that the organizational structure has affected the case company’s

implementation of their sustainability strategy positively by enabling strategies to emerge from

practice.

Keywords: Sustainability Strategy, Strategy Implementation, Organizational Structure,

Organizational Culture, Internal Communication, Decentralization

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 AIM OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 RESEARCH QUESTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 DELIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3

THEORY SECTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4 SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................................. 4 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................ 5 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ............................................................................................................................................. 6 INTERNAL COMMUNICATION ............................................................................................................................................ 8

METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................................10 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ..................................................................................................................................................10 RESEARCH APPROACH......................................................................................................................................................11

RESEARCH DESIGN - CASE STUDY ..................................................................................................................................12 CASE COMPANY - COMPANY X ........................................................................................................................................12 DATA COLLECTION ...........................................................................................................................................................13

Empirical data .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Semi-structured interviews .................................................................................................................................. 13

SELECTION OF RESPONDENTS AND CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEWS .......................................................................14 PILOT STUDY ......................................................................................................................................................................15 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................................16 ETHICAL ASPECTS .............................................................................................................................................................16 METHOD REFLECTION .....................................................................................................................................................17

FINDINGS ...........................................................................................................................................................19 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ......................................................................................................................................19

Type of organizational structure in the case company ............................................................................. 19 The power of the retailers .................................................................................................................................... 20

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ...........................................................................................................................................21 Unspoken consensus through freedom ............................................................................................................ 21

INTERNAL COMMUNICATION ..........................................................................................................................................23 Internal communication channels .................................................................................................................... 23

ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................................................25

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................29 FUTURE RESEARCH ...........................................................................................................................................................30

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...........................................................................................................................................31

REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................................32

APPENDIX 1- INTERVIEW GUIDE ..............................................................................................................37

1

Introduction

In this section the background information and the problem formulation is discussed. We will

also present the aim of the study and finish with our research question, followed by the

delimitations of the study.

Background

Companies are considered as central actors in today’s discussion towards a more sustainable

society and the expectations on corporate responsibility are ever-increasing (Engert &

Baumgartner, 2016). Given the higher expectations, sustainability has become a pivotal part

for companies’ long-term survival (Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana & Bansal, 2016). Even though

concepts such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability have been

discussed for many years, there has only been limited progress towards sustainable

development (Baumgartner & Rauter, 2015). According to Eccles, Ioannou and Serafeim

(2014), there has been an increasing number of companies that have voluntarily integrated

sustainability efforts in their business models and organizational processes. Furthermore, there

has been a large increase in sustainability and CSR reporting during the last two decades

(Baumgartner, 2009).

Even though sustainability reporting has increased substantially, it is uncertain whether it has

improved companies’ sustainability work or not (Klettner, Clarke & Boersma, 2014). Previous

research has shown how there is a gap between companies formulated sustainability strategy

and their implementation resulting in that companies engage in sustainability efforts without

becoming more sustainable (Engert & Baumgartner, 2016). Even though managers are aware

of that engaging in a more sustainable strategy would be beneficial and essential, they might

not know how to implement and integrate an effective strategy or how to configure the

organization to become more sustainable (Eccles et al., 2014; Engert & Baumgartner, 2016).

Marx (2016) and Olson, Slater and Hult (2005a) discuss how the organizational structure is a

critical factor to consider during a strategy implementation process. Aligning a company’s

structure and strategy is therefore a challenge (Marx, 2016). Epstein and Roy (2001) argue in

line with them that implementing a sustainability strategy into a complex organization is not

an easy task. According to Engert and Baumgartner (2016), there must be coherence between

2

the organizational structure and sustainability strategy in order for the strategy to successfully

be implemented.

Previous research has concluded that strategy implementation may be easier to achieve with in

a decentralized organizational structure as it allows employees close to the operations to

participate in the strategic management process (Olson et al., 2005a). A decentralized

organization is characterized by less formality where the authority is delegated downwards in

the organization (Love, Priem and Lumpkin, 2002). Distributing the responsibility to lower

levels implies that the individual employee is empowered and hence have a higher level of

impact on the strategic management process (ibid.). Therefore, a decentralized organization is

perceived to contribute to more freedom among employees, increasing their motivation to

engage in the strategy implementation and open up for new ideas deriving from various

organizational levels (Olson, Slater and Hult, 2005b) On the other hand, Mintzberg (1994)

argues that centralized organizational structures are beneficial during strategic planning where

only the top management is involved and thus provokes more straight-forward decisions.

Dobni (2003), Pirjol and Radomir (2016) and Engert and Baumgartner (2016) present that

previous research has found that an organization’s internal communication has been

fundamental for a successful strategy implementation. Engert and Baumgartner (2016) also

highlight that regarding sustainability strategies, an effective internal communication promotes

employees’ willingness to engage in the implementation process. Previous studies have

primarily focused on the relationship between companies’ external communication and their

sustainability strategy where less emphasis has been devoted to the internal communication

(Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka, 2010). As a company’s sustainability strategy is nowadays often

considered to be part of their core strategy, more focus has been dedicated to how the internal

communication affect the strategy implementation process (ibid.). However, there exist

differences to what extent employees should be aware of the strategic management process.

Mintzberg (1994) claim that the top management should be restrictive with what they choose

to disclose regarding the strategy. On the contrary, Stegaroui and Talal (2014) and Miller

(1997) argue that communicating the articulated strategy will increase the employees’

knowledge and make them feel committed to the strategy. Heide, Grønhaug and Johannessen

(2002) argue that the internal communication is essential to consider during a strategic

management process as it serves as a forum, connecting employees with each other through

social interactions and thus constitutes the organization.

3

Engert and Baumgartner (2016) identified both internal communication and organizational

culture as success factors for a corporate sustainability strategy implementation. Internal

communication is considered to create a shared understanding of the established strategy whilst

an organizational culture constituted by values that promotes employees to be open for new

ideas should facilitate the implementation process (ibid.). Hambrick and Canella (1989) found

that a shared understanding for and a commitment to the strategy is a prerequisite for a

successful implementation process. The authors claim that the success depends on the top

management’s ability to create a coherence of the strategy within the organization. This implies

that the organizational culture is crucial for an implementation process as it may either facilitate

or complicate the implementation process. A culture that promotes and enables a transition

from the existing culture to become more sustainable will facilitate the implementation process

(Engert & Baumgartner, 2016). On the other hand, a culture that dismisses employees to be

open-minded, adaptable and willing to change will hinder the implementation process (ibid.).

Aim of the study

Organizational structure, organizational culture and internal communication have been

identified as important factors when implementing a strategy. These factors, in combination

with that the literature regarding corporate sustainability strategy implementation in

decentralized organization seems scarce have served as a basis for this thesis and hence the

research question. The purpose is therefore to investigate how organizational structure,

organizational culture and internal communication may foster or inhibit a sustainability

strategy implementation process within a highly decentralized organization. The aim of the

study is thus to contribute to a deeper understanding of how different types of factors impact

the implementation.

Research question

How does organizational structure, organizational culture, and internal communication affect

a decentralized company’s implementation of a sustainability strategy?

Delimitations

This thesis aims at contributing to a deeper understanding of factors that affect an

implementation process, but does not emphasize what the company does in order to be

4

sustainable. Further, there will be no appraisal on whether the company has a good

sustainability strategy or not. The study only investigates the factors organizational structure,

organizational culture and internal communication and devotes focus particularly to those

areas, neglecting other types of factors that may affect the implementation of a sustainability

strategy.

Theory section

This section presents central theoretical concepts that the thesis is based upon. The topic of

sustainability strategy as well as the identified factors, organizational structure, organizational

culture, and internal communication are presented according to existing literature.

Sustainability Strategy

According to Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) sustainability has become essential for the 21st

century. The concept of sustainability embodies a promise to improve the social and

environmental performance of both the present generation as well as future generations to come

(ibid.). According to Baumgartner (2009), sustainability can only be achieved in the long run

if sustainability aspects are being integrated in the company’s core strategy. An efficient way

for companies to do this is to conduct and implement a sustainability strategy (McElhaney,

2009). Engert and Baumgartner (2016) highlight that implementing a sustainability strategy

can be beneficial for companies in terms of competitive advantages and customer focus and

Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) emphasize how stakeholders’, foremost customers’, interest in

sustainability is a spur for companies to engage in sustainable endeavours.

The implementation process is to be seen as the most fundamental key factor for a strategy to

be successful (Miller, 1997; Hambrick & Canella, 1989). A strategy can be well formulated,

however, if the implementation process of the strategy is weak and the formulated strategy is

not being realized, the strategy will not provide any value for the company. Implementing a

strategy is not an easy task and as for a sustainability strategy, it requires that the strategy is

being integrated throughout the organizational culture and that the employees are willing to

strive for a change (McElhaney, 2009; Baumgartner & Rauter, 2016; Baumgartner, 2009).

When conducting a sustainability strategy, it is important that the board and top management

make an authentic commitment to the initiative and actively engage in it (McElhaney, 2009).

The strategy has to be implemented so that the employees understand the long-term advantages

5

of being sustainable (Baumgartner & Rauter, 2015). McElhaney (2009) emphasizes the

importance of integrating sustainability efforts and the corresponding strategy in the whole

organization and highlight how it should be integrated into the culture: “Fully integrate CSR

into the culture, governance, and strategy-development efforts of the company, and into

existing management and performance systems” (McElhaney., 2009, p. 33).

This implies that the sustainability efforts should be managed as a pivotal part of the business

and that sustainability thus is to be treated as a part of the company’s core strategy (McElhaney,

2009). It will be required that the sustainability strategy will be integrated in the daily

operations and that the whole organization is motivated to become more sustainable

(Baumgartner & Rauter, 2016).

Organizational structure

Strategies must be suited to the organizational structure (Marx, 2016: Olson et al., 2005a;

Epstein & Roy, 2001). Organizational structure is the system that determines the allocation of

responsibility, authority and tasks within an organization (Lunenburg, 2012). Different

organizational structures influence how decisions are made, how the communication is carried

and the coordination within the corporation (Olson et al., 2005a). When implementing

strategies, these aspects are key parts (ibid).

The organizational structure is a critical component of strategy implementation (Olson et al.,

2005a; Epstein & Roy, 2001). Andersen and Nielsen (2009) and Olson et al. (2005a) emphasize

how decentralized organizational structures where autonomy is pivotal, is beneficial for

strategy implementation. In decentralized organizations, the authority is delegated to lower

levels of the organization (Love et al., 2002). This means that the responsibility is distributed

to different departments and units, and empowerment is given to more individuals than solely

the top management. Andersen and Nielsen (2009) present that by involving empowered

employees in organizational decisions, relevant and important information as well as

alternative perspectives are included when evaluating the decisions. The authors state that

participatory decision-making and autonomous initiatives induce adaptive behaviour. This

enhances the performance and implementation in turn. Olsen et al. (2005a) present a similar

reasoning and discuss how a decentralized structure may be beneficial for sustainability as

6

individuals close to the operations have an understanding of local factors. Granting them

empowerment therefore facilitates the implementation process (ibid.).

Strategies that evolve from initiatives taken at lower hierarchical levels, emergent strategies,

tend to be common in decentralized organizations (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). Mintzberg and

Waters (1985) present how emergent strategies enable the management to surrender control to

those close to the operations, possessing the knowledge and information relevant to shape

realistic strategies. These type of strategies enable collective actions and convergent behaviour

(ibid.). Andersen and Nielsen (2009) emphasize how strategies that emerge from autonomous

initiatives, collective and participatory decisions facilitate adaptive behaviour. Emergent

strategies arise in contexts where actions at lower hierarchical levels can be taken without the

top management’s awareness (Andersen & Nielsen, 2009). This context represents a

decentralized organizational structure where empowered employees have sufficient autonomy

to take initiatives and to make decisions that can become a part of the corporate strategy (ibid.).

The authors state that by giving authority to employees at lower organizational levels allows

important strategic influences to arise from actions taken at levels closer to the operations.

These employees possess better understanding of the relevant surroundings (ibid.).

However, as a decentralized structure distributes the responsibility and thus allows greater

freedom for employees, it also provides less control over operations (Marx, 2016). This could

affect strategy implementation as less control over operations means less ability to affect and

govern the different units. Love et al. (2002) claim that it is often harder to affect and turn

decisions over to empowered employees and that it consequently is important with guidelines.

The authors state: “The need for integration is greater in more decentralized firms in order to

maintain strategic cohesiveness and control” (Love et al., 2002, p. 615). The need to make the

strategy explicit and clarify the mission downwards in the firm to all members is thus important

in decentralized organizations. For effective strategy implementation, it is pivotal.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture becomes important during a strategy implementation process as the

success of the implementation depends on the top management’s ability to create a shared

understanding of the strategy and a uniformity within the organization (Hambrick & Canella,

1989). Organizational culture can be seen as a forum where meanings are being constructed

7

and expressed through social interactions (Schein & Schein, 2017). Even though it exists

numerous of definitions of what culture is depending on research field, the common view is

that organizational culture is the shared values, norms, beliefs and behaviors that exists within

the organization and that affects the way employees interact with each other as well as with

other stakeholders (Heide et al., 2002; Schein & Schein, 2017). The culture also tends to persist

over time even when the composition of members changes (Baumgartner, 2009).

The organizational culture will also impact how employee’s make decisions, perceive, think

and feel about certain things (Baumgartner, 2009; Schein & Schein, 2017). This implies that in

order for a sustainability strategy to be successfully implemented, there has to exist a cohesive

organizational culture, consisting of values and norms in line with the strategy (Baumgartner,

2009; Heide et al., 2002). In order to create uniformity within the organization, communication

becomes of great importance (Hambrick & Canella, 1989). Organizational culture is therefore

presumed to be constituted by the employees through communicating with each other (Heide

et al., 2002). This implies that there has to exist a shared view about the company’s

sustainability strategy in order for employees to be committed and live up to it (Miller, 1997;

Heide et al., 2002).

In order for a strategy to be implemented successfully, the organizational culture has to allow

new thinking and that new strategies can emerge (Miller, 1997). This can, to some extent, be

governed by the management by promoting such behaviors and attitudes that facilitates the

implementation process (ibid.). An organizational culture that consists of values that

contributes and promotes employees to be open-minded, active and engaged will ease the

implementation as well as having a conducive climate (ibid.). During an implementation

process, it is common that the culture faces pressure where social norms and behaviors may be

questioned (Baumgartner, 2009). Even if implementing a new strategy implies a cultural

change (McElhaney, 2009; Baumgartner, 2009), the culture should support the strategic

management process rather than counteracting it.

The implementation process will be facilitated if there exist a mutual belief within the

organization that that the sustainability strategy will provide with benefits (McElhaney, 2009;

Baumgartner, 2009). It is also crucial that the new strategy is being integrated at all levels

within the organization (Baumgartner, 2009; McElhaney, 2009). Therefore, it is of great

importance that the company make sure that the strategy has emerged in line with the

8

company’s culture and the employees’ shared values in order to be successfully implemented

(Heide et al., 2002). Baumgartner (2009) also mention that a company can only become

sustainable if sustainability is something that is desirable within the organization. This implies

that the sustainability strategy has to be communicated throughout the whole organization

(Baumgartner & Rauter, 2016), where an effective internal communication is required (Heide

et al., 2002).

Internal Communication

Communication can be defined as the process of transmitting information, thoughts and

emotions among and between individuals (Stegaroui & Talal, 2014). Effective internal

communication is considered to be a prerequisite for a company to succeed with its strategy

implementation (Dobni, 2003; Heide et al., 2002; Pirjol & Radomir, 2016; Rapert et al, 2002).

Rapert et al. (2002) argue that internal communication is a crucial part of the strategy

implementation process and thus assert that it is a central part of turning the strategy into action.

Dobni (2003) claim that numerous of strategy implementations have failed as an outcome of

ineffective internal communication. Lack of effective internal communication is one of the

reasons why companies fail to motivate and engage their employees to adopt corporate

sustainability strategies and work towards its long-term goals (ibid.). Pirjol and Radomir (2016)

reaffirms that an effective internal communication will have a positive impact on employees’

motivation regarding the implementation process and to engage in it.

Heide et al. (2002) claim that communication should be seen as fundamental for every company

as it is the internal communication that helps to create, develop and hold together the

organizational culture through social interaction. Heide et al. (2002) argue that the main

objective with an effective internal communication is to achieve an organizational change and

to promote a common goal building, enabled through communication. Creating a common goal

within the organization facilitates the company to motivate the employees to engage in the

strategic management process and thus increase the likelihood of succeeding with the

implementation process. An increased shared understanding within the organization regarding

the new strategy will also contribute to a stronger cohesion and strengthening the organizational

culture (Hambrick & Canella, 1989).

9

Uusi-Rauva and Nurkka (2010) found that face-to-face activities were the most effective

internal communication channels during a strategy implementation process. Workshops,

unofficial meetings, social events and regular meetings were found to be the most effective

way of communicating strategy-related information with the employees and also to ensure that

the strategy had been presented and understood correctly (Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka, 2010;

Stegaroui & Talal, 2014). Communicating the sustainability strategy through such easy-to-

understand communication channels will facilitate the process of creating a consensus of the

strategy as it fosters the employees to feel committed to and engage in the process (ibid.).

As oppose to face-to-face activities, one-way communication channels were found to be the

most ineffective way for a company to communicate its strategy. Such communication

channels do not facilitate the implementation process nor increase employees’ commitment to

stay engaged in the process (Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka, 2010). Sending emails or posting news on

the intranet are examples of such ineffective communication channels and is considered to be

one-way channels, from the top management and downwards within the organization (ibid.).

Companies should instead emphasize two-sided communication channels that requires active

participation from both parties (Stegaroui & Talal, 2014). Such internal communication

channels are considered to be more effective than one-way channels since it encourages

incentives from lower organizational levels, promoting a higher level of participation which

will increase employees motivation to stay active in the strategic management process since

they will feel more involved (ibid.). This implies that strategic internal communication should

be a central part of the company’s strategic plan and thus facilitate to achieve its sustainability

strategy (Stegaroui & Talal, 2014; Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka, 2010).

According to Mintzberg (1994), the top management should be careful with sharing and

disclosing too much information about the strategic management process for employees as it

may lead to inertia and impaired flexibility in their decision making. On the contrary, Miller

(1997) argues that the strategic management process should be seen as a communication

process where a well-communicated strategy is determinant for a successful implementation,

as it will facilitate to create a shared view concerning the strategy. This will further foster the

employees motivation to stay active, committed and involved in the implementation process

(ibid.). Ansoff (1987), Bourgeious and Brodwin (1984) and Stegaroui and Talal (2014) claim

that a formulated strategy should be communicated within the organization as it will make it

10

easier for the employees to adapt and thus facilitate the implementation process. Rapert et al.

(2002) argues that getting as many as possible involved in the strategic planning process will

increase employees’ motivation and the probability of succeeding with the implementation.

Excluding a large part of the employees outside the implementation process will make it more

difficult for the culture to adopt the strategy and will be harmful for the organization as it

creates a gap between the culture and the new strategy (Ansoff, 1987; Miller, 1997). According

to Rapert el a. (2002), effective communication channels will foster a cultural consensus, create

a shared understanding for the strategy and close the gap between the culture and the new

strategy. This is in line with Love et al. (2002) who states that in order for the implementation

to be successful it is important that the strategy is being well-presented. The authors stress how

it is crucial in decentralized organizations as a clearly articulated strategy creates a

consciousness and a link between the goals and the employees which in turn creates an

awareness and increased knowledge about the company’s strategic intentions. This in turn

promote commitment and motivation among the employees to actively participate in the

implementation process (ibid.).

Methodology

In this section, the methodology of the thesis is presented and the underlying assumptions

adopted in order to perform the study will be explained. The choice of research strategy as

well as research method in relation to the purpose of our study is presented, followed by the

data gathering process and the data analysis. The chapter will end with ethical aspects and a

method reflection.

Research philosophy

According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016), Bryman and Bell (2013) and Śliwa (2017),

qualitative research can be derived from an interpretation-oriented ontological approach. This

implies that there is no such thing as objective truth nor observable reality but instead, each

human has its own perception of what is real and true, where the world is a social construction

made by those experiencing it. This interpretive and constructivist approach emphasize to

understand human behavior and to explain complex phenomenon through the researchers view

(Śliwa, 2017; Bryman & Bell, 2013).

11

With this approach in mind, we felt that it was suitable to conduct a qualitative research

concerning the purpose of our thesis. This is in line with what Bryman and Bell (2013) and

Cassell, Buehrins and Symon (2006) claim, that when the purpose of the study is to investigate

a complex phenomenon where its contextual setting is essential for the results and where there

is no single answer to the problem, the researchers should choose a qualitative research

strategy. Investigating a strong market player’s corporate sustainability strategy and how its

implementation process may be affected by the company’s organizational structure, culture and

internal communication, the contextual setting is most certainly relevant. Therefore, a

qualitative approach was chosen in order to generate a deeper understanding of the studied

phenomena, which Andersen (2012) and Hyde (2000) emphasize that qualitative research do.

In line with Śliwa (2017) who argues that there is no single paradigm within the research field

of business that can explain the whole science, we also found it suitable for us to choose a

qualitative research design, since there is most likely not one single theory or answer to our

studied phenomena. Similar to our research and our case study, it is plausible that there are

numerous of organizational factors that will affect the company’s ability to successfully

implement their sustainability strategy and that the factors will depend to a large extent on the

respondents as well as on how we tend to interpret the findings. The chosen success factors are

based on what we have perceived as the most determinant and important factors to consider for

a successful strategy implementation, in combination with our empirical findings and previous

literature.

Research approach

An abductive approach has been applied where we formulated the research problem and the

purpose of the thesis by looking at previous research in the same field. We identified how a

gap between corporate sustainability strategy formulation and implementation had been

investigated and that there exists numerous of studies that examine the implementation of

sustainability strategies. However, to our knowledge, not in highly decentralized organizations.

Having an abductive approach allowed us to subsequently modify the theoretical framework

depending on what type of empirical data that was being gathered as the process proceeded. It

also enabled us to move back and forth from theory to analysis and is thus an iterative process.

According to Woo, O’Boyle and Spector (2017), abductive reasoning is a combination of the

two traditional ways of performing research, deductive and inductive reasoning which

combines the two approaches in order to develop, conduct and evaluate research. In the next

12

sections, our chosen case company will be presented as well as how the interviews were

conducted.

Research design - Case study

Since the main purpose with our study is to generate a deeper understanding for how different

factors affect a company’s sustainability strategy implementation in a decentralized

organization, we decided that a case study would be a suitable research design. According to

Bryman and Bell (2013) and Śliwa (2017), a case study enables the researcher to study an

actual problem in its natural context and is a suitable method to use when the main purpose of

the study is to generate a deeper understanding of the studied area. In order for us to be able to

answer our research question, a more in-depth understanding for the organization’s structure,

organizational culture and internal communication had to be acquired through individuals who

experience it. In line with our methodology, the research design was also chosen because it

allowed us to focus on one particular case in one specific company. The research design further

enabled us to make strong theoretical connections, contribute with new knowledge and thus

increase the study’s credibility and trustworthiness.

Case company - Company X

Our chosen case company will be referred to as Company X with regards to their request of

being anonymous. The case company was selected based on its involvement in sustainability

activities and because of its profound sustainability strategy. The company has further claimed

themselves as taking a leading position for sustainability, making it a relevant case company.

It is a large Swedish retail company operating mainly in Sweden but also in some countries

nearby. The case company has an organizational structure which is highly decentralized where

the operators of the stores, the retailers, are independent and self-owned actors. The stores thus

work as self-contained operating units independent of each other. Interviewing employees at

various positions enabled us to investigate how such decentralized structure and decision-

making authorization foster or hinder the company’s implementation of a sustainability

strategy. This method identifies the employees perspective of Company X’s corporate

sustainability strategy implementation with regards to the chosen success factors.

13

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the respondents and company information

was gathered from the case company’s website. Prior research and literature has been gathered

through Uppsala University’s library. Bryman and Bell (2013) and Śliwa (2017) emphasize

various data collection methods in order to get a holistic view of the case.

Empirical data

Our empirical data consist of primary data collected from our semi-structured interviews. We

found semi-structured interviews to be a suitable method due to its flexibility and ability to

generate qualitative data and to get a better understanding for the studied phenomena. The

interviews were held with employees within the case company, working at different

organizational levels. By interviewing owner’s (retailers), store managers as well as one

employee working at the company’s sustainability department, we managed to get an overview

perspective of the case company and their organizational factors.

Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews allows the respondent to express his or her own feelings and give

distinct examples instead of solely shallow answers (Bryman & Bell, 2013). This is important

to remember, as the main purpose with a semi-structured interview is to make it feel more like

a conversation rather than a questioning (ibid.). With this in mind, we conducted our interview

guide by having prepared questions but where the focus was devoted to cover broader themes

during each interview rather than emphasizing specific questions. Semi-structured interviews

also allow additional questions to be asked depending on the situation which means that one

interview will differ from the other. This happened several times during our interviews when

some of our prepared questions were skipped as the respondent had already touch upon it and

when there were ambiguities and uncertainties in the respondents’ answers. Our interview

guide was derived through an abductive reasoning based on previous similar studies and

operationalized from our literature review (see Appendix 1), in line with what Bryman and Bell

(2013) recommends, in order to make strong theoretical connections in the analysis.

Every interview was held individually with the respondents in order to get closer to the

respondent’s true opinions and to minimize the risk of getting influenced. During the

interviews, we tried to ask as open questions as possible and not to uncover our own thoughts

and feelings about the subject in order to stay as objective as possible and to not affect the

14

respondents answer. This should be kept in mind by the researchers (Bryman & Bell, 2013).

Even if it is impossible for the researcher to stay entirely objective during an interview, there

is a risk that the interviewer’s opinion will have a negative impact on the respondent’s

willingness to answer as truthful as possible (Kim, 2011; Seidman, 2006).

Table 1. Overview of the interviews

Interview Respondent Date Length of

the

interview

Type of

interview

Position

1 X1 2019-04-25 31:11 Telephone Store manager

2 X2 2019-04-29 40:54 Personal meeting Retailer/owner


4 X4 2019-05-03 25:06 Personal meeting Sustainability

developer



Selection of respondents and conducting the interviews

Our empirical findings have been gathered from six interviews. Each respondent was contacted

through email, telephone or Linkedin a few weeks before the interviews were being held. This

enabled us to present ourselves, the aim of our study and to make an appointment for the

interview. However, we were cautious about revealing too much about the study since the main

purpose of the interviews was to get an understanding of their personal view without being

affected by our opinions.

The interviews were conducted in Uppsala, Stockholm and Västerås between the date April

25th- May 8th 2019. The pilot study as well as one of the interviews were conducted by phone

due to lack of time and geographical limitations as the respondent was located in Gävle. The

rest of the interviews were held at the respondent’s workplace. This was done in accordance

15

with Bryman and Bell’s (2013) recommendations in order to get closer to the respondents

natural setting. The interviews lasted for about 25-60 minutes. The interview held by phone

was more of a structured character as the conversation was less vivid than the face-to-face

interviews. In the interviews, both of us participated. One held the interview and focused on

the conversation whereas the other one took notes, observed and interrupted if anything was

unclear or followed up with supplementary questions if there was a need for further elaboration.

The interviews were further recorded which is recommended by Bryman and Bell (2013) and

Saunders et al. (2016) as it facilitates the transcription process and thus the data analysis.

However, informing the respondents about the recording can sometimes be perceived as a

negative aspect as the interviewee may feel restricted to express true feelings (Bryman & Bell,

2013; Christensen, Engdahl, Gräss & Haglund, 2010). Nonetheless, we informed the

respondents about the recording and asked for their permission in order to be transparent. We

explained that we needed to record to facilitate the analysis.

After we had conducted our sixth interview, and due to our time limit, we decided to focus on

the analysis instead, in order to find patterns within our empirical findings and to make strong

theoretical connections. Qualitative research are often getting criticized because of their too

small sample size. However, in accordance with Trost (2010), we decided that we had gathered

enough data to proceed with our analysis.

Pilot study

A pilot study was conducted before the real interviews to make sure that our research question

was valid and feasible to study as well as to ensure that our interview questions were relevant.

Bryman and Bell (2013) and Kim (2011) suggests that a pilot study should be conducted in

order to examine whether the problematization and research question are well-formulated and

is actually worth studying.

After our pilot study, we decided to keep the same layout and arrangement for the planned

interviews. Some of our questions were replaced or erased since the answers did not provide

with any useful information for the purpose of our thesis. The respondent for the pilot interview

was chosen through a purposive sampling method and were approached through LinkedIn. The

respondent worked as a store manager and felt to our knowledge as a suitable respondent.

16

Bryman and Bell (2013) argue that a pilot study should be as similar as possible as a regular

interview to ensure that the interview guide is relevant.

Data analysis

The analysing part is a central part of the research where the purpose is to get a better

understanding and to present the data that have been collected (Bryman & Bell, 2013). Every

interview was recorded and transcribed to make it easier for us to compare and find patterns in

the data and thus, facilitate the analysing process. Transcribing also minimizes the risk of

misinterpreting the respondents answers or to use them incorrectly (Bryman & Bell, 2013).

After the interviews had been transcribed, we started to analyse our data by systematically

manage it in separate documents. The empirical findings were then categorized by us separately

by using colour marks for each theme. This was done in order to not miss anything important

from our gathered data but also to make sure that we had perceived the data in similar ways.

As a second part of our analysis, we merged our notes into one document where we discussed

and compared inconsistencies or where we had highlighted differently in our data.

Furthermore, we came up with subjects within each factor that we felt had emerged clearly

from the interviews. This facilitated our analysing process but also served as a layout for our

analysis. This have been done in accordance with Holme and Solvang’s (1997) three phase

method by structuring the data systematically, where the purpose is to create an overview

analysis.

Ethical aspects

The responsibility to perform this thesis in a moral and ethical manner has been ours. The

information presented in the thesis has not been changed or modified under any circumstances.

The respondents participating in the study was informed that involvement was optional and

they had the opportunity to end the participation at any time. Each interview started by

informing the respondent about ethical aspects regarding confidentiality and anonymity as well

as informing about audio recording (Appendix 1). The respondents were also informed that the

material would only be used for the purpose of the study and solely by us. The respondents had

further the possibility to reject being quoted. None of the interviewed disapproved or had

objections about the ethical aspects that were presented in the beginning of each interview.

17

These ethical aspects were taken into consideration based on Vetenskaprådet’s (2017)

recommendations when conducting research.

Method reflection

Since our result and conclusions are based on one single case company, they should not be

generalized to other situations. Our study also consists of a relatively small sample size and has

not been selected through a probability selection method. However, in line with Saunders et al.

(2016), this has not been our intention with the thesis where the main purpose instead has been

to study a real case and to make strong theoretical connections.

With this in mind, we selected our respondents based on our own ability to choose suitable

respondents, which is called a purposive sampling method and is commonly used within

qualitative studies (Śliwa, 2017). The method enabled us to get access to respondents involved

in the sustainability strategy implementation process at different organizational levels,

possessing relevant knowledge. However, there is a lot of critique against the sample method

where the researchers can never be quite sure that the respondents possess relevant information

before the interview has been conducted, which can be very time consuming for the researchers

(Polit & Beck, 2008, Alvehus, 2013). We faced some difficulties with getting access to relevant

respondents were some chose to reject our invitation whereas others did not reply.

In general, we have three main implications regarding our methodology, all related to how we

selected our respondents and conducting the interviews. First, every retailer or store manager

that was interviewed owned or worked in a large store located in larger cities. None of the

respondents hence operated in stores at the countryside. This could affect our empirical findings

as there could be differences based on geographical and demographical aspects. Secondly,

when the respondents were contacted, we presented our topic for the respondents, before they

had decided to participate in the study or not. Afterwards, we believe that this transparency

came to be a disadvantage for us. Presenting the study’s subject before the interview affected

our sample by probably only attracting individuals committed to sustainability in general and

that somewhat act in accordance with the case company’s sustainability strategy. This may also

have affected individuals that lacks the knowledge or motivation regarding the subject to reject

participation. The last limitation that we see with our methodology is that only one of the

respondents worked at the headquarter. We wanted to interview at least two from the

18

headquarter since they are heavily involved in the strategic management process but it was

difficult to get the access. This means that, in this study, the headquarter is only represented by

one respondent and should therefore not be seen as representative nor objective for the

headquarter.

Considering these limitations, we believe that our findings is distorted. Therefore, our findings

nor conclusions should be seen as representative for the whole case company. Our case study

should thus only be seen as a part of the whole organization.

Further in our analysis, quotations from our respondents will be presented. These quotations,

as well as the interview guide, have been translated to English in order to make the thesis

understandable for international peers.

19

Findings

This section presents the empirical findings from the interviews. To clarify the claims made

by the respondents, quotes are provided.

Organizational structure

Type of organizational structure in the case company

During the interviews with the individual retailers, the respondents emphasized how they are

independent and self-contained retailers. Emphasis was put on the authority they have and

consequently on the substantial amount of freedom. The retailers were asked upon if the parent

company had an impact on their operating work and more specifically on their sustainability

work. The respondents claimed that the HQ does not interfere in the retailers’ sustainability

activities nor tell the retailers to act in accordance with their articulated strategy. There are

however recommendations and guidelines for the sustainability work. X1 stated:

“There are guidelines [regarding sustainability] from Company X but it is up to each store to decide what

should be done and not” - X1

The respondent meant that there are guidelines from HQ on how to act regarding sustainability,

but also that it is up to every store to decide what to actually implement and how to act. X2

expressed a similar claim and stated that it is in the hands of the retailer to work with

sustainability and that there are no demands or requirements.

X5 argued that the retailers possess more knowledge and a better understanding of the day-to-

day activities than the headquarter does as they are close to the operations and to the customers.

The respondent meant that they know what is best for their store and in their local area and that

they act upon what is needed for them. X3 claimed similarly and stated that the operations and

business need to be adapted to the local market and how there are differences in our country.

The respondents further emphasized how their sustainability efforts mainly derives from what

is relevant for their own store and their customers. X2 stated how the efforts need to be fitted

to the specific needs, where the stores find their own way:

“It feels like each store tries to find its own way in terms of sustainability” - X2

20

The respondent mean that for their sustainability activities, they find ways and solutions that

are suitable to them. X5 explained how the location of the store, which happen to be an

articulated environmental-friendly area is affecting their operations to a large extent, more than

the HQ’s general goals and strategy:

“I believe that the fact that we are located in an eco-friendly city area drives our sustainability work more than

the corporate goals” - X5

X5 explained how they do many sustainable friendly choices and the respondent stated how

that is affected and influenced by the local area. Their customers who demands it take the

sustainability efforts as a prerequisite. The respondent’s store changed plastic bags due to the

willingness to be ‘in the front’ and follow trends, be ahead of their customers. The respondent

claimed that they identified that their competitors changed, hence they changed. Respondent

X3 further claimed how they in their store have a certain type of plastic bags due to the retailer’s

belief that it is a better bag than other plastic bags. X6 explained how there was a problem with

plastics and packaging in the respondent’s store and declared how solving that became a

priority. The respondent further emphasized how this and other sustainable efforts are driven

by personal beliefs and attitude towards sustainability.

The power of the retailers

During the interviews, it was revealed that the individual retailers have the possibility and the

authority to affect decisions that not only involve them, but also the organization as a whole.

The organizational structure in the case company thus allows decision-making at different

levels. One of the respondents, X2 declared that the people at the HQ listen to the retailers to a

large extent and because of this, they have great possibility to affect what happens in the

organization. Respondent X5 expressed a similar reasoning and claimed that the retailers have

the power to be part of different decisions that are made:

“I would say that there are quite few decisions being made by HQ that the retailers have not been involved in” -

X5

The respondent meant that the retailers have been involved in the majority of the decisions

made by the HQ. X6 further declared the same and stated that all organizational decisions that

affect them are made are in accordance with the retailers. The respondent explained how a

21

decision to reduce single-use plastic products is a decision that has been made by the HQ in

conjunction with the retailers.

X3 and X6 explained that specific elected retailers together with representatives from the top

management are involved in different decision-making processes. The two respondents

emphasized how these retailers are part of the strategic decisions made in the organization. X4

stated accordingly and expressed how the retailers affect the HQ and declared how they are

involved in different projects. The respondent explained how a large project aiming at reducing

waste was decided by the top management, but in conjunction with the retailers. The respondent

emphasized how the structure of the organization is formed in a way where the retailers are a

big part of the overall corporation and that the retailers are influencing and affecting them

much. X4 stated:

“The retailers have a very strong voice, coming from all parts of the country” - X4

The respondent meant that the power from the retailers is major.

Organizational Culture

Unspoken consensus through freedom

It emerged during the interviews that there is a lack of awareness of the company’s

sustainability strategy and goals among the respondents. The retailers and store managers were

asked if, or what they knew about the company’s sustainability strategy and it revealed that

there is a lack of knowledge. X4 who is working at the HQ’s sustainability department was the

only respondent familiar with the company’s strategic goals in detail. The other respondents

claimed that they could not provide with any specific information about the strategy. X2

expressed that they do not look at the parent company’s strategic goals when they are

conducting their own market analysis and thus, strategy:

“I must admit that I am not that familiar with the corporate goals, I would rather say that we perform our own

independent market analysis that we follow” - X2

Another respondent, X5, expressed a similar reasoning and stated that he was familiar with the

corporate sustainability strategy but not in detail. X5 explained that some of his goals are in

22

common with the parent company’s, but that the focus primarily is devoted to his own strategy

and goals:

“I know that there are some corporate goals and of course we share them, but my primary goal is to focus on

our own store’s goals” - X5

The respondents expressed that their relationship with the HQ is built on trust and freedom,

where they are able to act independently and to make own decisions. This type of relationship

with the HQ was something that the respondents were pleased with. Furthermore, many of the

respondents expressed that there is often a common view among the retailers and the HQ on

how to do things which ease their collaboration. X6 explained:

“For me personally, I listen to what they [the HQ] say and take it in to consideration. I think that it is great that

we can do things together. It is not like they make demands [...] but rather that we can accomplish things

together” - X6

All of the respondents answered in similar ways when they were asked why they are committed

to sustainability related activities. From their answers, it became clear that it exists a cohesion

and a common view within the whole organization about their sustainability commitment,

without being aware of the strategy in detail. X4 declared that this shared understanding

existing within the organization could be explained by the company’s history, arising from the

individual retailers commitment of contributing to and being locally engaged in their

community. As the company has grown and become a large player in the Swedish retail-

industry, X4 expressed that their willingness to contribute to a sustainable world and take

responsibility have become stronger within the organization:

“[...] We need to take responsibility to earn our place as a large actor in the Swedish market. Besides, we have

a history of being locally engaged in our communities which has expanded up to the headquarter. We have a

tremendous power coming from the retailers, which is why I believe so many great things are being done.” - X4

The respondents were asked how the stores may comply with the parent company’s articulated

strategy when there are no direct requirements from the HQ to act in a certain way and where

the strategic works seems to occur independently from the HQ. Similar to previous findings,

X6 declared that the organization have existed for such a long time that it nowadays is grounded

in the company’s culture to cooperate and to do better. During the interview with X2, it was

23

also revealed that the main objective of the collaboration between the retailers and the HQ is

to get benefits in order to develop competitive advantages together with the parent company

and maintain their strong market position:

“We have been around for over 100 years and it is in our culture to cooperate and make things better. A lot of

good things are coming from HQ but I would say that very much is coming from us retailers too, making it a

great mix.” - X6

“We are individual retailers who collaborate to make things better, to create advantages and to move our

businesses forward.” - X2

Another explanation for the respondents shared view about their sustainability strategy within

the organization is that the HQ never starts implementing a strategy unless the retailers have

been informed and to some extent agreed upon it. This emerged from the interview with X4.

According to the respondent, before the HQ is introducing a new strategic goal such as reducing

their waste, they have a long process of trying to establish and highlight what benefits that may

arise from the strategy within the organization and among the retailers. X4 said that it is

essential to establish the new strategy within the organization before it is being implemented

and formulated externally as it ensures that the goals are achievable. Continuously, X4

emphasized that there has to exist a commitment and a will to become more sustainable from

the retailers in order to succeed with the strategy. If the retailers do not feel motivated to act in

accordance with the sustainability strategy, X4 believe that they have failed:

“[...] We have a quite long process before the implementation to ensure that the strategy has been adopted by

the retailers. This does not mean that every retailer will be aware of it or feel committed to it but that the

strategy and its goals are achievable [...] There has to exist incentives and engagement among the retailers in

order for our sustainability strategy to be achievable [...] If we set strategies that no one wants to follow where

we have not given them incentives to do so, we have failed” - X4

Internal communication

Internal communication channels

All the interviewees mentioned that HQ put a lot of effort on communicating the company’s

sustainability strategy through various internal channels such as the intranet, email, specific

councils represented by different retailers and at regional- and general meetings. However,

during the interviews, it was revealed that there is an information gap and lack of internal

24

communication concerning their sustainability strategy, as none of the retailers nor store

managers were aware of their sustainability strategy or its strategic goals in detail, as already

been stated.

Some of the retailers explained that strategy-related information mainly is communicated

through non face-to-face channels such as the intranet or by email. X3 stated:

“A lot of the information is being communicated through our intranet” - X3

Sustainability- and environmental announcements such as reduced waste or emission-related

information are communicated through the intranet. It emerged from the interviews that some

of the retailers disapprove how the sustainability strategy is communicated. X2 claimed that

the HQ relies too much on the intranet to be an efficient communication channel and expressed

that they seem to believe that the intranet is used more than it actually is:

“I would say that HQ perhaps rely a bit too much on the intranet. They think that the store managers are

constantly active on the intranet which is not always the case.” - X2

The respondent further claimed that this also puts too much responsibility on the individual

retailer, to always stay active and informed about the strategy. X2 continued and explained

how it would be preferable if the HQ found better channels to communicate the sustainability

strategy, targets and goals through.

X4 also expressed concerns regarding that the sustainability strategy foremost is communicated

through such channels as some of the retailers choose not to take note of the information. The

respondent further explained how the strategy awareness depends on the retailers’ and store

managers’ own will to be active by checking emails and the intranet. X4 continued by

explaining that there is an ambition from the HQ to find other ways to communicate with the

retailers through and to get them more engaged in the strategic management process. The

respondent however elaborated on the difficulties in gathering a large amount of individual

retailers and to create a shared understanding of the company’s sustainability strategy,

especially when some of them do not even check their email:

25

“Yes, it is very difficult to reach every single one of the retailers, especially when some of them do not even

check their email. This is something that we [HQ] are trying to get better at, in order to get more retailers more

involved and committed regarding sustainability” - X4

Simultaneously, other respondents claimed that the strategy was communicated in an efficient

way through the existing communication channels. From the empirical findings, it became

evident that there existed ambiguities among the retailers’ attitude towards some of the

meetings that are being held by the HQ. X3 mentioned that far from every one of the retailers

participate at these meetings. In line with X3, X6 expressed that these type of general meetings

are unnecessary and time-consuming for retailers as him, that already takes part of the

information that is being provided by the HQ through the existing communication channels:

“For me personally, I think that the general meetings sometimes are a waste of time. Many of the meetings are

only about information that I have already been taken part of. However, not everyone do that so I guess in some

cases these meetings are meaningful but most often it is old news for those who stay informed” - X6

Analysis

This section analyses the empirical findings together with previous literature presented in

theory section.

The organizational structure within the case company is highly decentralized and the individual

retailers are self-contained and independent operators. They decide on everything in their stores

and have the authority to affect decisions relevant for the organization as a whole. As Andersen

and Nielsen (2009) and Olson et al. (2005a) discuss, this type of structure can be favourable

for strategy implementation. The retailers have sufficient autonomy to make decisions that can

affect things on higher hierarchical levels. This is beneficial as they are close to the operations

and hence possess the right knowledge and understanding of what the customers wants and

demands, and thus have relevant information about the operations. Olson et al. (2005a) stress

how granting employees close to the operations empowerment facilitates the implementation

of the strategy. Andersen and Nielsen (2009) emphasize how this generates adaptive behaviour

which in turn enhances the implementation and performance. One respondent explained how a

large strategic target to reduce waste was developed by the HQ together with the retailers. It

was further revealed that the retailers are involved in various strategic decisions and that most

of the decisions made by the HQ is made in conjunction with the retailers.

26

Strategies that evolve in this particular way, emergent strategies, are to a higher degree

attainable as they emerge from, and out of, the practice (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). If the

retailers have been part of the strategic decisions and thus been involved in deciding targets

and goals, the strategies have emerged from practice and are therefore more realistic. Because

of this, due to the fact that employees at lower organizational levels have been involved in

strategic decisions and that it seems that strategies have emerged from these levels, it should

influence their adaptation to the strategies. In light of Mintzberg and Waters’ (1985) concept

of emerging strategies, the retailers’ and store managers’ sustainability efforts are aligned with

the overall corporate strategy, without fully knowing what the strategy entails. This could be

explained by their involvement in the strategic decisions. As the retailers have been granted

autonomy through the organizational structure and are active and participative in strategic

decisions, in combination with their sustainable actions, it seems that within the case company,

the sustainability strategy and the organizational structure are aligned. As the organizational

structure is a critical factor in strategy implementation, it is important with alignment (Marx,

2016; Olson et al., 2005; Epstein & Roy, 2001).

Another explanation for why the individual retailers comply with the parent company’s

sustainability strategy without being aware of it in detail could be the organizational culture

within the case company. It was revealed that there is a common view of the culture emerging

from the company’s long history of being locally engaged in their community and to contribute

to the society. Having a strong organizational culture is perceived to facilitate the process of

creating a shared understanding of the strategy within the company (Hambrick & Canella,

1989). McElhaney (2009), Baumgartner (2009), Heide et al. (2002) argue that companies that

want to implement a new strategy, such as the case company’s goal of reducing their waste,

have to ensure that the strategy is derived from the employees shared values and has support

from the company’s values. This implies that it has to exist a consensus and a common view

about the strategy within the organization to become more sustainable and in order to actually

be able to implement a strategic sustainability goal (Baumgartner, 2009; McElhaney, 2009).

A4 expressed how the company’s commitment to become sustainable has become more

prevalent as the company has grown and become a strong player in the Swedish retail-industry.

This is similar to what Baumgartner (2009) claims, that an organization’s culture is constituted

by the employees shared values, norms and behaviors and that tends to persist over time, even

when the composition of individuals changes.

27

The respondents who presented the sustainable actions they do claimed that the efforts mainly

derive from needs and demands based on their local area, their stores and their customers, rather

than what the HQ suggest. The individual retailers and store managers focus on their stores and

engage in sustainability efforts based on their locals needs demands and other factors. This can

be connected to Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) who highlight how sustainable endeavours are

driven by customers’ interest in sustainability. This could also explain why they engage in

sustainable activities without being aware of the articulated sustainability strategy.

Since the retailers possess the freedom to operate independently, it is hard for the top

management to affect certain decisions and behaviour, if not impossible. According to Love et

al. (2002), this is often the case with decentralized organizations, making it difficult to affect

and turn decisions over to empowered employees. This is in line with what Marx (2016) also

emphasizes, how decentralized organizational structure means less control over operations for

the management. It became evident that there are no requirements or reconciliations made by

the HQ on the individual retailers to follow or act in accordance with the articulated

sustainability strategy. There are however guidelines and recommendations from the HQ how

the retailers and store managers can comply with the strategy. Love et al. (2002) highlight the

importance of having guidelines within a decentralized organization since it creates

cohesiveness of the strategy. The respondents claimed that they constantly get affected by the

parent company on how to act regarding sustainability, but that it is up to them to act

sustainably.

One may argue that in what way the top management decides to communicate the new strategy

will have an impact on the retailers commitment to stay active in the strategic work. Hambrick

and Canella (1989) claim that the internal communication is of great importance to create a

uniformity within the company. Making the retailers aware of the strategy and more involved

in the strategic management process will facilitate the strategy implementation (Engert &

Baumgartner, 2016; Ansoff, 1987; Miller, 1997; Bourgeios & Brodwin, 1984; Stegaroui &

Talal, 2014). As mentioned in our findings, the HQ has a long process of establishing the

strategy before they actually implement it which proves that they want to ensure that the

strategic goals are being well received and will be adopted by at least some of the retailers. In

line with Heide et al. (2002), the buy-in process of the strategy is done by the HQ in order to

ensure that the strategy has emerged from and is in line with the company’s shared values. This

28

will increase the employees’ motivation to act in line with the strategy. However, this was

something that solely was mentioned by A4 and not by any of the retailers nor store managers.

Having effective internal communication channels is considered to be a prerequisite for a

successful strategy implementation (Rapert et al., 2002; Heide et al., 2002; Pirjol & Radomir,

2016; Dobni, 2003). Love et al. (2002) claim accordingly and emphasize how an effective

internal communication is essential for a successful implementation in decentralized

organizations. Some of the respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the communication,

while others were content with it. The dissatisfied respondents claimed that the HQ relies too

much on the existing channels, such as the intranet and emails. These findings are in line with

Stegaroui and Talal (2014) and Uusi-Rauva and Nurkka (2010) who argue that non face-to-

face activities are ineffective communication channels, inhibiting the employees motivation to

stay engaged in the strategic planning.

The dissatisfied respondents also thought that the HQ puts too much responsibility on the

individual retailers to constantly stay active about the strategy through the intranet. This was

seen by the respondents as a side effect of poor internal communication. According to Stegaroui

and Talal (2014), such one-way, ineffective communication channels may be harmful for the

strategic implementation process since it complicates for the retailer to stay involved. On the

contrary, the satisfied respondents thought that the existing communication channels were

well-functioning. This is in line with the findings of Uusi-Rauva and Nurkka’s (2010) that

found that face-to-face activities such as meetings and workshops are considered to be the most

effective communication channels for communicating companies’ sustainability strategy.

Both X3 and X6 were satisfied with the existing communication channels and how the

sustainability strategy was communicated. However, similar to the other retailers, X3 and X6

had difficulties with explaining the parent company’s sustainability strategy and its main

targets. They also expressed that the general meetings held by the HQ were time consuming

whereas other respondents claimed that the meetings were meaningful. X3 mentioned that far

from every retailer participate at these meetings. This may be harmful for the implementation

process as some employees might miss relevant information and consequently, that the strategy

will be adopted by fewer employees and not truly be implemented into the organization. This

is line with the research of Rapert et al. (2002) who claim that getting as many as possible

involved in the strategic management process will foster employee's motivation to stay

29

committed to the strategy. This have also been emphasized by Ansoff (1987) and Miller (1997)

who argues that excluding a large part of the employees outside the strategic planning may

inhibit the implementation. In line with X3, X6 expressed that these meetings are unnecessary,

especially for those retailers that already stays active on the intranet and have a will to become

better. These inconsistencies made it evident that there are ambiguities concerning whether the

internal communication regarding the strategy functions well or not.

Conclusion

In this section, conclusions based our findings and analysis is presented. Suggestions for future

research as well as the limitations of the study is further provided.

Based on our empirical findings, it exists ambiguities whether the internal communication is

effective or not. The low awareness of the articulated sustainability strategy can be explained

by the lack of effective internal communication channels. However, this does not seem to affect

the sustainability strategy implementation as the respondents act according to the strategy

anyways. Even if the retailers and the store managers seems to be unaware of the parent

company’s sustainability strategy in detail, there still seems to be a cohesive view about the

strategy and what they want to achieve. Since it has not been clear that the internal

communication has promoted nor inhibited the case company’s strategy implementation, we

conclude that the internal communication have a neglectful impact on the implementation

process.

Our results suggest that the common view that exists concerning the case company’s corporate

sustainability strategy can be explained by the culture within the organization, deriving from

their long history of being locally engaged and contributing to the society. In the case company,

it seems that it is deeply-rooted and established to act sustainably and to improve for a better

world. This seems to be one of the explanations why most of the respondents have a shared

perception about the company’s sustainability strategy and to follow it. We therefore propose

that the organizational culture have affected the case company’s implementation of their

sustainability strategy by promoting and encouraging the retailers to feel committed to the

strategy.

30

Our study reveals that a company’s structure also is essential for the implementation process

of a sustainability strategy. Within the case company, a decentralized structure where the

retailers and the store managers are involved in the strategic management process, allowing

strategies to emerge from the practice, have been determinant for their implementation process.

This have enabled and facilitated adaptive behavior, which can be an explanation for why they

have acted according to the strategy without being aware of what the strategy entails. The

organizational structure has also affected the implementation of the sustainability strategy by

allowing employees at lower hierarchical levels to be involved in the overall corporate strategy.

We hence suggest that the organizational structure affects the case company’s implementation

of the sustainability strategy in a positive way through enabling strategies to emerge from the

practice.

Beyond our identified factors, our result also indicates that the retailers and store managers act

in accordance with the company’s sustainability strategy due to stakeholder interest and to act

upon guidelines given by the headquarter.

Future research

This study has examined how organizational structure, organizational culture and internal

communication affect the implementation of a sustainability strategy. As identified in the

section of method reflection, the sample size of the study is relatively small and a proposition

for future research would therefore to include more respondents, and perhaps a more varied

sample. It would be interesting to study this particular area and interview individuals with

different positions in the organizations, including different individuals from the HQ as well as

different positions from the stores. This could perhaps provide with a deeper understanding and

a more nuanced view of how the factors affect the strategy implementation. It could further

reveal different perceptions and lead to differing conclusions. To study more in detail what the

case company articulate in their sustainability strategy and further to investigate if that is turned

into action would be interesting as well.

Another suggestion for future research would be to investigate geographical differences and if

stores in bigger/smaller cities affect how the sustainability strategy is implemented. There

might as well be differences between smaller and bigger stores and that too would be interesting

31

to investigate. These two suggestions could generate other results as the implementation might

get affected differently in other contextual settings.

Limitations of the study

One limitation of the study is the sample. We only interviewed retailers and store managers

operating in large stores in larger cities and one employee from the case company’s

headquarter. A larger sample size by including more respondents in the study could have

provided us with different perspectives of the studied phenomenon. This could also have been

done if the study was based on more than just one case company. Investigating other companies

as well could provide us with more nuanced view of how the strategy implementation process

is affected by the chosen factors.

32

References

Alvehus, J. (2013) Skriva uppsats med kvalitativ metod: en handbok. Stockholm: Liber.

ISBN: 9789147099153.

Andersen, I. (2012). Den uppenbara verkligheten: Om kunskapsproduktion i

samhällesvetenskaparna. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB. Upplaga 2:1.

Andersen, T. J., & Nielsen, B. B. (2009). Adaptive strategy making: The effects of emergent

and intended strategy modes. European Management Review, 6(2), 94-106.

Ansoff, H. I. (1987). The emerging paradigm of strategic behavior. Strategic Management

Journal, 8(6), 501-515.

Baumgartner, R. (2009). Organizational culture and leadership: Preconditions for the

development of a sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, 17(2), pp.102-113.

Baumgartner, R. and Rauter, R. (2015). Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability

management to develop a sustainable organization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140,

pp.81-92.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how

consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California management review, 47(1), 9-

24.

Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D. R. (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an

elusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 241-264.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2013). Företagsekonomiska forskningsmetoder. 2. uppl. Stockholm:

Liber.

Cassell, C., Buehrins, A., & Symon, G. (Eds.). (2006). Qualitative methods in management

research.

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/

33

Christensen, L., Engdahl, N., Graas, C. & Haglund, L. (2010). Marknadsundersokning:en

handbok. Upplaga 4. Stockholm: Studentlitteratur AB.

Dobni, B. (2003). Creating a strategy implementation environment. Business Horizons, 46(2),

43-43.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.

Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141.

Eccles, R., Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. (2014). The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on

Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science, 60(11), pp.2835-2857.

Engert, S., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2016). Corporate sustainability strategy–bridging the gap

between formulation and implementation. Journal of cleaner production, 113, 822-834.

Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2001). Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the

key performance drivers. Long range planning, 34(5), 585-604.

Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella Jr, A. A. (1989). Strategy implementation as substance and

selling. Academy of Management Perspectives, 3(4), 278-285.

Heide, M., Grønhaug, K., & Johannessen, S. (2002). Exploring barriers to the successful

implementation of a formulated strategy. Scandinavian journal of management, 18(2), 217-

231.

Holme, I. M., Solvang, B. K., & Nilsson, B. (1997). Forskningsmetodik: om kvalitativa och

kvantitativa metoder. Studentlitteratur.

Hyde, K. F. (2000). Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative

market research: An international journal, 3(2), 82-90.

Johannessen, A., & Tufte, P.A. (2003). Samhällsvetenskaplig metod. Malmö: Liber AB.

34

Kim, Y. (2011). The pilot study in qualitative inquiry: Identifying issues and learning lessons

for culturally competent research. Qualitative Social Work, 10(2), 190-206.

Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability:

Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible

business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 145-165.

Love, L. G., Priem, R. L., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2002). Explicitly articulated strategy and firm

performance under alternative levels of centralization. Journal of Management, 28(5), 611-

627.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Organizational structure: Mintzberg’s framework. International

journal of scholarly, academic, intellectual diversity, 14(1), 1-8.

Marx, T. G. (2016). The impacts of business strategy on organizational structure. Journal of

Management History, 22(3), 249-268.

McElhaney, K. (2009). A strategic approach to corporate social responsibility. Leader to

leader, 52(1), 30-36.

Miller, S. (1997). Implementing strategic decisions: Four key success factors. Organization

studies, 18(4), 577-602.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard business review, 72(1),

107-114.

Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic

management journal, 6(3), 257-272.

Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N., & Bansal, P. (2016). The long‐term benefits of organizational

resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8),

1615-1631.

35

Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005a). The performance implications of fit

among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior. Journal of

marketing, 69(3), 49-65.

Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005b). The importance of structure and process

to strategy implementation. Business horizons, 48(1), 47-54.

Pîrjol, F., & Radomir, L. L. (2016). Internal Communication-Its Role and Performance in

Developing the Strategy of an Organization. Management and Economics Review, 1(1), 52-

70.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2008). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for

nursing practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Rapert, M. I., Velliquette, A., & Garretson, J. A. (2002). The strategic implementation

process: evoking strategic consensus through communication. Journal of Business Research,

55(4), 301-310.

Saunders, M., P. Lewis and A. Thornhill, 2016, Research methods for business students,

seventh edition, Harlow: PrenticeHall.

Schein, E.H. & Schein, P. 2017, Organizational culture and leadership, 5th ed

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. Teachers college press.

Śliwa, M. (2017). Qualitative Methodologies in Organization Studies: Volume II: Methods

and Possibilities. Springer.

Stegaroiu, I., & Talal, M. (2014). The importance of developing internal communication

strategy. Valahian Journal of Economic Studies, 5(1), 63.

Trost, J. (2010) Kvalitativa intervjuer. Upplaga 4. Lund: Studentlitteratur. ISBN: 978-91-44-

06216-7.

36

Uusi-Rauva, C., & Nurkka, J. (2010). Effective internal environment-related communication:

An employee perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(3), 299-

314.

Vetenskapsrådet. (2017) Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig

forskning. Retrieved 2019-05-22 from: http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf

Woo, S. E., O'Boyle, E. H., & Spector, P. E. (2017). Best practices in developing,

conducting, and evaluating inductive research.

http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf

37

Appendix 1- Interview guide

Introduction and ethics

Presentation of the authors and the aim of our study

Thank you for participating in this interview. Before we start, we would like to inform you

about a few things:

• You can choose not to answer any of our questions, and you can withdraw from the

study at any time and your information will not be used in the study

• The interview will be recorded and will only be available for us to ensure no

information will be misinterpreted.

• You will be anonymous as well as your company however, we will give you and your

company a new name and you may be quoted in our thesis

So, if everything feels okay, I suggest that we start the interview!

• What is your job title and could you describe your role?

• How do you perceive that you are part of a franchise concept?

• In your daily work, what makes you stay motivated and what do you get energy from?

• The parent company has a number of strategic goals and priorities, do you know

anything about these, and would you like to describe them in general?

• What do you know about your parent company’s sustainability strategy/ sustainability

goals and what is your attitude concerning these?

• Company X’s sustainability strategy is called XXX and is derived from the key

words, transparency, credibility and traceability. What is your attitude regarding XXX

and these three words?

• Would you say that your customers care about the environment?

• What does sustainability mean to you?

• How are the sustainability strategy, its targets and guidelines being communicated

internally? How do you think it functions?

• How does the HQ ensure that the strategy is being realized in the stores? Do they

follow-up the implementation process?

38

That was about it, is there something that you would like to add, otherwise, thank you for

your time!

Additional questions for retailers and store managers

• How would you describe that you get support from the parent company?

• Do you do anything sustainability related in your store? Any examples?

• What is the reason for this sustainability work, what is the driving force?

• Do you have any requirements or demands coming from the parent company when it

comes to staying sustainable? Something that has to be done in the store for example?

• If we go back and talk a little bit about how you perceive that you get support and

feedback from the HQ, how does the communication function between you and the

HQ?

• How are the responsibility distributed between you and the HQ when it comes to

realize the sustainability strategy?

• Do you think that you and other retailers/ store managers have an impact on the

decisions made by the top management?

Key Aspects of Implementing a Corporate Sustainability ...

Documents