1. 1
A case study of SEB’s CSR
communication
How does SEB communicate its CSR strategy to its
stakeholders and how does the communication style differ
between various stakeholders?
Josefine Coster and Stina Ahnlid
Stockholm Business School
Bachelor’s Degree Thesis 15 HE credits
Subject: Business Administration
Spring semester 2014
Supervisor: Natalia Tolstikova

2. 2
Abstract:
The aim of the thesis has been to investigate the different communication methods to different
stakeholders in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR). A case study has been
conducted on the Swedish bank Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB) to explore the
difference in communication strategies to various stakeholders and to see how SEB
communicate their CSR work. The data was collected through SEB’s Sustainability report,
Code of Conduct, group web page and an interview with Elisabet Linge-Bergman, who is the
senior communication manager at SEB. The framework used to analyze the data was taken
from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013) including three communication strategies called
informational, persuasive and dialog strategy. The framework is inspired by stakeholder
theory. The key findings are that SEB implements all three communication strategies;
however, the persuasive strategy is implemented most. Additionally, SEB uses different
communication strategies to different stakeholders and they reserve the dialogical
communication to only employees and shareholders.
Keywords:
CSR, Communication, Stakeholders, Informational strategy,
Persuasive strategy, Dialog strategy
Word
count: 15 188 (excluding abstract, appendix and bibliography)

3. 3
Table
of
Contents
1.
Introduction
........................................................................................................................................
5
1.1
Background
....................................................................................................................................
5
1.2
Problematization
...........................................................................................................................
7
1.3
Aim
and
research
question
............................................................................................................
7
1.4
Relevance
......................................................................................................................................
8
1.5
Outline
...........................................................................................................................................
9
2.
Literature
review
and
theory
discussion
...........................................................................................
10
2.1
Literature
review
.........................................................................................................................
10
2.1.1
CSR
in
the
field
of
communication
.......................................................................................
10
2.1.2
CSR
communication
in
relation
to
stakeholder
theory
........................................................
11
2.2
Theoretical
tools
..........................................................................................................................
13
2.2.1
Informational
strategy
..........................................................................................................
13
2.2.2
Persuasive
strategy
..............................................................................................................
14
2.2.3
Dialog
strategy
......................................................................................................................
15
2.3
Summary
.....................................................................................................................................
15
3.
Methodology
.....................................................................................................................................
17
3.1
Philosophical
and
methodological
approach
..............................................................................
17
3.2
Research
method
........................................................................................................................
18
3.3
Case
selection
..............................................................................................................................
19
3.4
Data
.............................................................................................................................................
20
3.4.1
Sustainability
report
.............................................................................................................
20
3.4.2
Web
page
.............................................................................................................................
20
3.4.3
Code
of
Conduct
...................................................................................................................
21
3.4.4
Interview
..............................................................................................................................
21
3.5
Coding
guide
and
data
analysis
...................................................................................................
22
3.5.1
Coding
schedule
...................................................................................................................
23
3.6
Validity
and
reliability
..................................................................................................................
24
3.7
Limitations
...................................................................................................................................
25
3.8
Research
ethics
............................................................................................................................
25
4.
Empirical
data
and
analysis
...............................................................................................................
26
4.1
SEB’s
2013
Sustainability
report
..................................................................................................
26
4.1.1
Informational
........................................................................................................................
26
4.1.2
Persuasive
............................................................................................................................
27

4. 4
4.1.3
Dialogical
..............................................................................................................................
30
4.2
SEB’s
sustainability
web
page
......................................................................................................
32
4.2.1
Informational
........................................................................................................................
32
4.2.2
Persuasive
............................................................................................................................
33
4.2.3
Dialogical
..............................................................................................................................
34
4.3
SEB’s
Code
of
Conduct
................................................................................................................
35
4.3.1
Informational
........................................................................................................................
35
4.3.2
Persuasive
............................................................................................................................
35
4.3.3
Dialogical
..............................................................................................................................
36
4.4
Interview
with
Elisabet
Linge-­‐Bergman,
Senior
Communication
Manager
at
SEB
......................
36
4.5
How
the
communication
strategy
differs
between
stakeholders
...............................................
41
5.
Discussion
..........................................................................................................................................
44
6.
Conclusion
.........................................................................................................................................
48
7.
Appendix
...........................................................................................................................................
50
7.1
Interview
guide
............................................................................................................................
50
7.2
Summarizing
table
of
findings
regarding
how
the
communication
strategy
differs
between
stakeholders
......................................................................................................................................
52
7.3
Summary
of
interview
(in
Swedish)
.............................................................................................
53
8.
Bibliography
......................................................................................................................................
59

5. 5
1.
Introduction
This chapter introduces the background of the thesis, explains the phenomenon and relevant
definitions, followed by the problematization, aim and research question. This leads the way
to the relevance of the thesis, ending with an outline of the study.
1.1
Background
“Corporate social responsibility is management of stakeholder concern for responsible and
irresponsible acts related to environmental, ethical and social phenomena in a way that creates
corporate benefit.” (Gronhaug et al., 2008:931). As indicated by the definition, the
stakeholder perspective is an important concept in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
Werther and Chandler (2010) even state that CSR is a strategy to address the relationship with
stakeholders. Interest in CSR has recently increased because of elevated recognition from
scholars, larger amount of conferences around the world and a growing number of businesses
that publish sustainability reports (van Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2008). Some elements that
have led to the increase of interest in CSR are the more pressing questions relating to
globalization such as environmental protection, human resource management, and health and
safety questions (Industry Canada, 2012). Other aspects include intergovernmental bodies that
influence organizations to act more sustainable, the rise in communication technology as well
as awareness and pressure from consumers and investors (ibid).
It is shown that the expectations on corporations have changed from solely focusing on profit
to including CSR (Cornelissen, 2011). Moreover, a central characteristic of CSR is the
interaction of the business organization’s role in, and responsibility to society (Trapp, 2013).
Because of the organization’s obligation to society at large, CSR strategy making involves the
evaluation of what others require and expect of the business (ibid), which has been referred to
as stakeholder management in previous literature (Manetti, 2011; Werther and Chandler,
2010).

6. 6
The stakeholder perspective is one of the main themes of this essay and through a qualitative
in-depth case study this thesis intends to gain a broader perspective on how contemporary
companies communicate their CSR effort to different stakeholders. According to Freeman,
the “stakeholder view of the firm” defines stakeholders as “any group or individual who can
affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives” (1984: 26). To study CSR
communication to different stakeholders the Swedish bank Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken
AB (SEB) has been the unit of analysis. Therefore, the stakeholder definition used in this
essay is implemented by SEB that perceive customers, employees, shareholders, government,
suppliers and business partners, and civil society organizations as its stakeholders
(Sustainability Report, 2013: 10).
Furthermore, this thesis evaluates the extent to which CSR communication is managed in
practice and whether those practices reflect the ideal conceptualizations of CSR
communication found in previous research. The ideal CSR communication strategy presented
later in the literature review reveals that dialogs between companies and stakeholders, where
stakeholders can to some degree influence the CSR strategy making is the most successful
strategy (Cornelissen, 2011). This is because it demonstrates legitimacy towards stakeholders
(ibid). In other words, a successful business is one that has worked out the best ways of
developing and nurturing stakeholder relations, responding to stakeholder anticipations and
taking advantage of such opportunity in community involvement programs. These actions
mutually support the society and the organizations’ business goals (ibid).
Contemporary studies focus on the importance of managers to actively engage with
stakeholders and include them in company decision-making (Trapp, 2013). To see how SEB
addresses different stakeholders in their CSR strategy and how a strategic CSR
communication typology is implemented, a framework deriving from Cornelissen (2011) and
Trapp (2013) has been applied. The typology includes the three dimensions of informational,
persuasive and dialog strategies in marketing communication (Cornelissen, 2011). Firstly, the
informational strategy consists of simply informing stakeholders about something. Secondly,
the persuasive strategy regards communication that tries to change stakeholders’ knowledge
to enhance the company image (ibid). Thirdly, the dialog strategy includes the dynamic
involvement of stakeholders in the company’s strategic agenda (Trapp, 2013). This typology
increases the understanding of how SEB communicate with its different stakeholders and to
improve the knowledge of how close reality is to theory.

7. 7
1.2
Problematization
In recent years the communication of CSR issues has risen intensely and some studies suggest
that nearly every big corporation publicly communicate their CSR work (Birth et al., 2008;
Borglund et al, 2008). Even though the trend is rapidly growing, little has been researched
about the concrete and systematic implementation of how corporations communicate CSR
efforts (Maignan et al., 2005). Previously, a lot of normative and theoretical work has
involved the discussion of ideal methods to stakeholder management and strategy formation,
although, relatively little research has been done on the extent to which current companies use
these theoretical guidelines (Trapp, 2013). Moreover, there seems to be a mismatch between
theory and practice with regards to CSR communication (ibid). A research gap exists because
of the lack of a common understanding and agreement within CSR communication
(Frostenson et al., 2011). Therefore, this thesis intends to explore more about how CSR
strategies are managed and communicated in reality.
1.3
Aim
and
research
question
In trying to understand the emerging trend of CSR communication this thesis aims at gaining
a deeper understanding of how CSR communication works in practice with a focus on
different stakeholders. Therefore, the thesis compares practice with theory, seeing whether
SEB follows the typology deriving from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013). CSR has been
established as a major advertising theme in companies’ communication mix and they are
increasingly searching for powerful links to attract the consumers’ attention (Mögele and
Tropp, 2010). Thus, it is important to understand how CSR communication works in practice;
therefore the research question is as follows:
How does SEB communicate its CSR-strategy to its stakeholders and how does the
communication style differ between various stakeholders?
To answer the research question the thesis analyzes SEB’s CSR communication and which
communication strategies they are using. To reach a triangulated evidence basis their

8. 8
Sustainability report from 2013, Code of Conduct from 2012 and group Internet web page
from 2014 have been studied. Also, a semi-structured interview with one of the
communication managers at SEB has been conducted. In addition, the research has been
guided by stakeholder theory and the three communication strategies of informational,
persuasive and dialog communication to facilitate the understanding of SEB’s CSR
communication in relation to their stakeholders.
1.4
Relevance
CSR communication is of high relevance in today’s society because of the significant increase
of CSR engagement during the latest decade (Mögele and Tropp, 2010). Limited research
exists on how CSR is communicated in practice and how it differs depending on stakeholders,
hence; it is important to gain insights into this phenomenon. Moreover, Gronhaug et al.
(2008) call for more research within CSR including a broader stakeholder perspective i.e.
including more stakeholder groups.
The stakeholder perspective is relevant since stakeholders are incorporated into the concept of
CSR, making it essential when researching CSR communication. In addition, contributions of
how companies communicate to different stakeholders is important to address to see whether
they manage their CSR communication in a, according to academia, successful manner
(Trapp, 2013). This thesis is academically important since researchers can see whether
stakeholder theory is applicable to reality or if it only is a utopian state not applicable for
organizations. Also, the study suggests relevance to communication managers as it describes
different communication strategies and how they best should be managed. The study
contributes to the field of communication, CSR and stakeholder theory, strengthening the
knowledge of the relationship between CSR communication and stakeholders.
The societal relevance of this thesis is that if corporations do not follow best practice and
suggestions from academia it could negatively influence society, especially when it comes to
questions regarding CSR where improvement of society is central. Additionally, in CSR it is
fundamental to navigate and include stakeholder concerns’ (Trapp, 2013). From the following
background, this thesis’ goal is to describe the current state of SEB’s CSR communication,
with a focus on different stakeholders, and to see if there is a mismatch between theory and

9. 9
practice.
1.5
Outline
The ensuing section reviews previous literature in order to set the scene and context of the
thesis. It also describes the theoretical framework and tools that have been used for analyzing
and guiding the empirical data. The next section focuses on the method and methodology of
the research, describing potential shortcomings of the study, followed by the fourth section
including the empirical data together with the analysis. The succeeding chapter includes a
discussion around the data and clarifies possible findings. The final section summarizes the
research, concludes the findings and stresses the limitations of the study. Additionally, an
appendix and bibliography can be found after the final section.

10. 10
2.
Literature
review
and
theory
discussion
This chapter begins with the literature review including important previous findings about
CSR in the field of communication and in the field of stakeholder theory. The second part of
this chapter includes a theory discussion focusing on a framework deriving from Cornelissen
(2011) and Trapp (2013) stressing three communication strategies called informational,
persuasive and dialog strategy. Finally, a summary is presented with the most central aspects
of this chapter.
2.1
Literature
review
Previous studies have mainly treated CSR as a corporate issue including research from a
management perspective (Öberseder et al., 2013). Scholars have discussed how corporations
best can respond to different demands from external stakeholders, which CSR initiatives that
enhance corporate performance, and why companies are engaged in CSR (Basu and Palazzo,
2008). Frequently, arguments used in previous literature have derived from stakeholder theory
trying to conclude whom the companies are responsible for (Öberseder et al., 2013). It is clear
that previous research has been spread within different dimensions of management focusing
less on the communication perspective.
2.1.1
CSR
in
the
field
of
communication
Within communication literature studies, significant fragmentation can be observed when
trying to reach the most relevant dimensions of CSR to investigate. To address this, Gronhaug
et al. (2008) made a study summarizing all CSR studies from 1995-2005 taken from a
marketing context. In their study, Gronhaug et al. (2008) critically assessed the
implementation of CSR in scholarly marketing literature. The aim was to develop a summary
of the contemporary status of the theory of CSR, also exploring how the marketing discipline
has addressed CSR. Methodically 54 articles in principal marketing journals were analyzed in
how the articles had conducted research on sustainable marketing. The findings of the study
was that a broadened perspective on empirical research to address CSR was needed to expand
the focus beyond consumers (ibid); hence, suggesting studies including all stakeholders.

11. 11
Additionally, the authors called for a more holistic perspective when addressing CSR in
research as well as more of exploratory oriented empirical studies (ibid).
Furthermore, researchers have expanded CSR within marketing trying to gain a broader
picture of the phenomena. For example, Maignan and Ferrell (2005) made a conceptualization
of CSR emphasizing the role and possible influence of the marketing discipline. They
employed existing knowledge on CSR orientation in marketing to support a methodology,
which could be used when implementing a well-integrated CSR program. They also proposed
a framework, inspired by stakeholder theory, illustrating CSR initiatives as an action to
undertake and display consistency to both organizational and stakeholder norms. Moreover,
they discuss how CSR initiatives should be managed to meet or exceed stakeholder norms.
Maignan and Ferrell (2005), argue that businesses will engage in CSR-behavior when the
presence of stakeholder power and cooperation with them is high. In accordance, the study
conducted by Gronhaug et al. (2008) Maignan and Ferrell (2005) imply that, since their
research is conceptual, future empirical research is needed.
2.1.2
CSR
communication
in
relation
to
stakeholder
theory
Communication literature agrees about the mechanism through which dialogs can create value
(Flick, 1998; Isaacs, 1993). Dialogs spur the learning process as well as creativity and
innovation (van Huijstee and Glasbergen, 2008). To distinguish between different degrees of
stakeholder engagement, a three-fold typology has been developed by Cornelissen (2011).
The typology derives from stakeholder theory and includes the three topics of informational,
persuasive and dialog strategies in CSR communication (ibid). Most managers’ approach to
stakeholder communication tends to be based on the model of strategic persuasion rather than
on the dialogical communication (ibid). This typology has been widely accepted and used
within academia (Werther and Chandler, 2010; Capriotti, 2011; Trapp, 2013).
Inspired by Cornelissen’s (2011) typology for communication strategies, Trapp (2013) has
conducted research with the aim of understanding how stakeholders influence the creation of
CSR strategy to enable evaluating the extent to which the theory of stakeholder management
is applicable to real life. Trapp (2013), along with many other scholars (Werther and
Chandler, 2010; Capriotti, 2011; Cornelissen, 2011) stress the common notion of CSR
including the relationship between the company and its stakeholders. Trapp (2013) also

12. 12
identifies the common contemporary view that managers should move beyond simply being
aware of stakeholder expectations and wishes and instead actively engage with stakeholders
and involve them in company decision-making. Van Huijstee and Glasbergen’s (2008)
findings also demonstrate that dialog between stakeholders and the company improves the
company’s CSR efforts and sustainability problems related to their business because of
mutual learning.
Although Trapp (2013) shows that there is an agreement in contemporary literature that
engaging stakeholders in decision-making processes is more beneficial than simply informing
or persuading them, she investigates whether managers view their actual practices as
reflecting this ideal. Through a quantitative and empirical study consisting of 16 structured
interviews with CSR managers of large Danish companies, Trapp concludes that despite
theories increasingly point towards the importance of stakeholder influence on CSR strategy
through means of collaboration (dialogical communication), CSR managers’ view of their
interaction with stakeholders stress that real life practice does not follow the theory of
stakeholder management. Instead she indicates that managers primarily view themselves as
listeners who seek stakeholder input on the CSR agenda, but who ultimately form the strategy
independently (persuasive communication). However, findings only involve large Danish
front-runner companies, suggesting further research in other contexts. Cornelissen (2011) and
Trapp’s (2013) research are in agreement with each other and both contribute to the field of
CSR communication, yet in different ways. Cornelissen’s (2011) focus is mostly on the
theoretical side of the debate meanwhile Trapp’s (2013) is mainly on the practical side.
Furthermore, Frostenson et al. (2011), similarly to Trapp, use stakeholder theory to compare
CSR communication in parent companies with their subsidiaries. Frostenson et al. (2011)
focus on the phenomenon called the “filtration effect”, which implies empirically that there is
less CSR communication at the subsidiary level compared to the parent level. The study
found a strong filtration effect when covering Sweden’s 206 largest retail firms. For example,
58 percent of the parent companies communicated all topics including environmental, ethical,
social and philanthropic while only three percent of their subsidiaries communicated on all
four topics. According to Frostenson et al. (2011) this implies that corporations consciously
organize CSR communication that involves attention to particular stakeholder groups. This
suggests that CSR communication changes depending on the stakeholder group the
communication is intended to. It is a problem that CSR communication does not “trickle-

13. 13
down” to subsidiary level since customers are a particular stakeholder group of utmost
importance for the core business and without the trickle-down effect they will miss the CSR
communication (ibid). In disagreement with Gronhaug et al. (2008), Frostenson et al. (2011)
finds that CSR strategies do not include customers to a large extent.
2.2
Theoretical
tools
Stakeholder theory is relevant to this study as previous research points towards corporate
communications main purpose being, both in theory and practice to manage the relationship
between stakeholders and the business (Trapp, 2013; Cornelissen, 2011; van Huijstee and
Glasbergen, 2008). The stakeholder theory is a conceptual framework of business ethics
together with organizational management, which point towards moral and ethical values in
the management of the business (Freeman, 1984). It focuses on how companies’ best can
satisfy the interests of its stakeholders (ibid).
The theoretical framework implemented in this essay mainly derives from Cornelissen (2011)
and Trapp (2013). As mentioned previously, they identify three communication strategies for
addressing stakeholder relationships: informational strategy, persuasive strategy and dialog
strategy. Since the typology is implemented in many previous studies and as it has been
widely accepted in academia (Werther and Chandler, 2010; Capriotti, 2011; Trapp, 2013), it
is a suitable framework for this thesis. To understand the theoretical concept, further
elaboration on the theoretical framework is presented below.
2.2.1
Informational
strategy
The informational strategy is essentially about informing the stakeholders about something
and making relevant information available to stakeholders (Cornelissen, 2011). This can be
done through web pages, newsletters and reports, which in turn might generate awareness,
and it might even create an understanding of the reasons for these decisions (ibid). Trapp
(2013) also differentiates this strategy as a one-way communication where the company only
communicates its information and view of the issues, without interacting with and involving
the stakeholders. Here focus lies on presenting facts and communicating to receive continued
support. Moreover, the strategy neither attempts collection of feedback from stakeholders nor

14. 14
includes listening to stakeholders’ views. With the informational strategy the aim is to make
information available to stakeholders and to receive continued support from them (ibid).
According to the theoretical logic described above, SEB might communicate in an
informational manner indicating that they might push information through newsletters, blogs
and other documents. Additionally, the information would be objective and factual, stating
what has been done. However, according to the informational strategy SEB would not be
expected to engage in any dialog together with stakeholders. The purpose of the strategy
would be solely to inform stakeholders of various CSR related issues that SEB is concerned
with.
2.2.2
Persuasive
strategy
The persuasive strategy tries to persuade and educate stakeholders that the company is
legitimate through campaigns, meetings and discussions with stakeholders (Cornelissen,
2011). It also tries to change stakeholders’ knowledge and perceptions to suit the company’s
view (ibid). Additionally, through marketing campaigns the company tries to sell their image
in a favorable manner, selling the appropriateness of their values and decisions (ibid). The
persuasive strategy is a two-way communication where the company engages in discussions
with stakeholders to receive feedback to gain valuable performance evaluations (Trapp,
2013). With this strategy the main objective is to persuade stakeholders of the worthiness of
the businesses decisions and actions (ibid). Even though some level of integration is present
the communication puts focus on listening rather than acting upon the feedback.
Considering the theoretical logic of the persuasive strategy, SEB would be expected to engage
in some type of interactive activities and discussions with stakeholders. They might
communicate their CSR work in an encouraging and persuasive manner, indicating that they
wish to influence their stakeholders into believing that SEB’s CSR approach is favorable.
Moreover, SEB might employ educational CSR campaigns seeking to teach and coerce
stakeholders into regarding that their business is ethically, socially and environmentally
friendly. The degree of feedback and two-way communication would not influence any
organizational or strategy changes, it would rather influence change in the communication
and branding of SEB.

15. 15
2.2.3
Dialog
strategy
With dialog strategy, the organization and stakeholders have a high level of interaction where
they can exchange ideas and opinions (Cornelissen, 2011). The company consults the
stakeholders during decision-making processes and they engage in negotiations to reach
mutual agreements. The communication should be two-way and there should be a degree of
rich exchange (called rich two-way communication) between the company and its
stakeholders, where immediate and personal discussions are deployed (ibid). Trapp (2013)
suggest that stakeholders are invited to give suggestions on the company’s CSR efforts. In
addition, this strategy includes giving stakeholders the ability to directly influence the
decision-making process (ibid). As mentioned earlier, previous research stress that companies
should implement this dialogical strategy when deciding upon CSR strategies and thus also in
their CSR communication, as it is seen as the most successful strategy (Trapp, 2013).
However, most companies approach to stakeholder communication is likely to be more
persuasive rather than dialogical (Cornelissen, 2011). It could be difficult for companies to
meet the democratic conditions of the dialog strategy, giving up some of their decision-
making autonomy (ibid). Nevertheless, successful CSR-programs should reflect stakeholder
expectations and preferences for corporate behavior and when using the dialog strategy these
preferences are better reached according to Trapp (2013).
Given the theoretical logic discussed above, SEB would suggestively communicate with
stakeholders in a very integrative way e.g. hosting events where stakeholder can join in
discussions and conversations regarding CSR decisions. Also, SEB would provide means for
stakeholders to express their opinions and give feedback to reach mutual agreements.
Moreover, all communication might not only be positive and SEB may communicate issues
and obstacles that they face within CSR.
2.3
Summary
To summarize, previous literature has focused on CSR-strategies from a managerial
perspective (Öberseder et al, 2013) and have mainly focused on why companies conduct CSR
and to whom they are responsible when conducting CSR (Basu and Palazzo, 2008).
Moreover, Maignan and Ferrell (2005) argue that businesses engage in CSR-behavior when
the presence of stakeholder power and cooperation is high. In disagreement, Trapp’s (2013)

16. 16
findings show that, even though, previous studies indicate that the dialog strategy is the most
effective with regards to CSR communication, companies still tend to implement the
persuasive strategy i.e. not including stakeholders when deciding CSR strategies. Thus,
indicating that CSR initiatives can exist even though stakeholder power is low. In addition,
Frostenson et al (2011) stress the presence of a “filtration effect”, meaning that it is mostly the
parent company that communicates on CSR issues and even more, they found a great
difference in the communication on CSR depending on which stakeholder group the
communication was intended to reach.
Considering these findings, it is appropriate to further research CSR communication in a
stakeholder context, discovering the difference in the communication depending on the
intended stakeholder group. Likewise, it is important to understand the difference between the
three communication strategies: informational, persuasive and dialogic in practice and with
regards to various stakeholders, since Trapp (2013) has identified a potential mismatch
between theory and practice in this field. As previous literature shows, this theoretical
framework is relevant as it is commonly accepted and implemented in academia (Werther and
Chandler, 2010; Capriotti, 2011; Trapp, 2013).

17. 17
3.
Methodology
This chapter begins with describing which research paradigm the study takes its base from.
The following section presents the research method the study has adopted and how the
empirical data was collected and analyzed. The chapter concludes with addressing some
critical aspects of the implemented method as well as the research ethics.
3.1
Philosophical
and
methodological
approach
It is important to consider the style of reasoning behind a research (Bryman, 2008). The style
of reasoning includes epistemology and ontology. Epistemology decides what is seen as true
and acceptable knowledge and ontology determines what is real and how the world is
perceived (ibid); therefore, one’s position will affect and determine the entire research design
and project. One must also consider the relationship between theory and research (ibid).
Regarding epistemology, the main views are positivism and interpretivism (Bryman, 2008).
Positivism concerns the quest for objective knowledge and seeks correlations and observable
facts (ibid). Meanwhile, interpretivists seek subjective knowledge and facilitate understanding
(ibid). A positivist approach begins with a clear theoretical focus and retains a high degree of
control over the research process compared to the interpretivist approach (ibid). As this study
is driven by theory, it takes on the positivistic approach, and it aims to provide objective
knowledge of how SEB communicates its CSR strategy to different stakeholders and the
difference in communication style between various stakeholder groups.
Concerning ontology there are two positions: objectivism and constructionism (Bryman,
2008). Objectivism believes that facts and meanings exist independently of social actors
(ibid). The belief that knowledge is based on previous personal experience and that the world
constantly is changing is a constructivist idea (Pouliot, 2007). In comparison to
constructivism, objectivism holds that the logical construction of theories is based on concrete
empirical facts (ibid). This thesis takes the ontological position of objectivism because data
and facts are used independently of social actors. However, full objectivism is not possible
since data from an interview is studied and there is always social interaction during a semi-

18. 18
structured interview. Despite the small social interaction the overall dominating standpoint is
objectivist.
To understand the relationship between theory and research, one must consider if the aim is to
develop a theory (inductive) or to test a theory (deductive) (Bryman, 2008). In inductive
studies, the theory is the outcome of the research; meanwhile, in deductive studies theory
guides the research (ibid). This thesis takes a deductive approach as it implements a
predetermined theory to analyze the data. Even though, the research does not include either
hypothesis or aims to test the theory it is more similar to the deductive style as it is guided by
an established theory. The study applies theory to practice to see how well the theory is
implemented in real life, indicating a deductive approach.
Furthermore, this thesis uses a positivist, objective and deductive approach with qualitative
data. To be able to gain a deeper and more exhaustive understanding of SEB’s CSR
communication strategy qualitative data was used. Qualitative data is most suited for this
thesis since it helps explore the phenomena of SEB’s CSR communication in relation to
various stakeholders (Farquhar, 2012). Conjointly, qualitative research commonly put
emphasis on words rather than numbers (Bryman, 2008). As the analysis is based on a
predetermined theory and the question is to research how SEB is communicating CSR-
strategy, and how the style differs between various stakeholders, the quantitative focus on
experiments and numbers would not generate the required data. Essential to this thesis is
extensive data regarding what SEB’s CSR communication looks like in practice, to enable
comparison between theory and practice. Implementing a qualitative approach instead of a
quantitative gives less control over the context (Bryman, 2008); however, since the aim is to
see how SEB is communicating on CSR a qualitative approach is more appropriate.
3.2
Research
method
The thesis is an empirical single case study of SEB’s CSR communication. This approach is
fitting since it tries to develop intensive insights in a flexible manner (Farquhar, 2012). Also,
studying CSR communication in a contemporary context could be seen as very complex
making it, according to Farquhar (2012), suitable for the case study method. The study does
not control the context and it focuses on exploring and understanding the CSR

19. 19
communication of SEB to its stakeholders making the case study design relevant (ibid).
3.3
Case
selection
The selected case for this thesis is the Swedish bank SEB. SEB is today one of the leading
corporate and investment banks in the Nordic countries. SEB has about 16 000 employees
around the world and in 2013 SEB had a net profit of 18,127 million SEK (SEB, 2014).
To increase the chance of analyzing a data-rich and good practice case, Sweden was selected
as the context for the study. Since, Swedish companies are among the best in the world in the
field of CSR and the Swedish governmental encouragement to follow CSR guidelines
(Björling, 2010) there is a greater possibility of finding companies that engage in well-defined
CSR strategies and communication. Hence, Sweden was a good context for the study.
Benefits of having a good practice case is that it increases the chance of finding interesting
and possible relationships. It is equally important that the selected case has a proper and well-
elaborated CSR communication, as findings might otherwise be irrelevant.
The banking sector was chosen because it plays an important function in economic
development as it can increase the external benefits to society (Levine, 2005; Beck et al.,
2010). As the banking sector is relatively well scrutinized (Pérez et al, 2012) the possibility of
the sector having a well-established CSR communication is great; hence, it is a suitable sector
for studying CSR communication.
Additionally, SEB was chosen since the company’s CSR strategy has gained positive
attention by the media (Borglund, 2012; Markow and Bönnelyche, 2013) hence; their CSR
communication should be well-developed and thoroughly managed. The case selection of
SEB is appropriate since it has provided saturated data for the research question to be
answered. Further research can investigate the possible findings with random cases to see if
there indeed is a connection.

20. 20
3.4
Data
The data has been collected from SEB’s Sustainability report (2013), Code of Conduct
(2012), group web page (April, 2014) and a semi-structured interview with a communication
manager at SEB. All data has been collected by the authors and have been examined for both
explicit and implicit references of how SEB address different stakeholders in their CSR work
and to describe their CSR communication style. The chosen documents are authentic and
representative, however, regarding credibility some biases may be suggested since all
document are directly written by SEB. Yet, the Sustainability report (2013) is audited and
assured by PwC indicating that the calculations and numbers in the report is presented in a
trustworthy and credible manner. To assist the analysis of the data, coding has been done
based on Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp’s (2013) theoretical logic of informational, persuasive
and dialogical communication strategies.
3.4.1
Sustainability
report
A Sustainability report is a corporate report that informs sustainability-related information
and is comparable with financial reporting (Global Reporting Initiative, 2014). SEB’s
Sustainability report should present information about the economic, environmental and
social impacts affected by SEB’s everyday activities as well as SEB’s values and governance
model (ibid). The report is used when analyzing the performance of SEB’s sustainability work
based on the four key areas of economic, environmental, social and governance performance
(ibid). The Sustainability report is of importance when studying SEB’s communication to
different stakeholders since it is one channel of communication between SEB and their
stakeholders. In addition, it is the main and most detailed communication channel regarding
annual progress in the sustainability field.
3.4.2
Web
page
Data from SEB’s web page has been collected during April 2014. Important to mention is that
the data is taken from SEB’s group web page, sebgroup.com, since it includes the CSR
communication from the headquarters perspective making the data up to date and relevant to
the whole company. Only pages concerning CSR and sustainability have been included in this
study. The web page is relevant to analyze as it is one of SEB’s main official communication

21. 21
channels. According to Verboven (2011), company web sites are specifically important since
they are a mode of communication that companies most likely use when communicating to
stakeholders. Also, properly articulating CSR activities on the web page is important for the
firm’s reputation as well as legitimacy (ibid).
3.4.3
Code
of
Conduct
SEB’s Code of Conduct (CoC) communicates SEB’s core values that SEB has in its business
relationships (2012). The CoC is an important document since it is one of SEB’s main
communication channels with their employees. SEB’s CoC is relevant data to study as
corporate codes of conduct are seen as a practical CSR instrument mainly used to govern
employee behavior and establish a socially responsible organization culture (Erwin, 2010).
3.4.4
Interview
On the 24th
of April 2014, a semi-structured interview with Elisabet Linge-Bergman,
communication manager at SEB, was conducted. The interviewee was purposively sampled to
ensure her relevance for the study and ability to answer the questions. Bryman (2008) states
the advantages of purposive sampling as it establishes good correspondence between the
research question and sample. Elisabet is responsible for SEB’s overall group communication
around sustainability and for the Sustainability report, qualifying her to answer questions
regarding SEB’s CSR communication.
The interview took 35 minutes and consisted of 20 questions. The questions focused on
relevant information about SEB’s communication to different stakeholders that was unclear or
not found in the documents. As van Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008) point out, companies
often refer to stakeholder engagement activities in CSR reports, indicating that stakeholder
dialogs contribute to their CSR activities, but, they generally do not report how stakeholders
contribute. Hence, it is difficult to study if stakeholders can influence the decision-making
process or not, which is an important dimension of the dialog strategy. Therefore, to probe
more into the dialogical and persuasive strategy, the interview was conducted.
Additionally, the interview guide (available in appendix 7.1) has been influenced by the
framework from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013). The interview was conducted in

22. 22
Swedish; therefore the data from the interview has been translated to English by the authors.
The authors made the transcription of the interview manually and in Swedish (see appendix
7.3 for a summary) after which the most important sentences were translated into English.
Moreover, the interview was recorded since, according to Bryman (2008) it permits repeated
examinations of the interviewee’s answers and it helps to counter the natural limitation of
human memory and accusations that the analysis might have been influenced by the
researchers’ values or biases.
3.5
Coding
guide
and
data
analysis
Since this thesis uses the deductive approach the analysis has followed the theoretical
framework from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013). The data was collected utilizing
content analysis, which is an empirical technique that highlights patterns of words and phrases
that occur in any form of communication (Geppert and Lawrence, 2008). Content analysis
was used since it is a transparent and flexible research method (Bryman, 2008). The
Sustainability report, web page, Code of Conduct and interview have been searched for
phrases fitting the communication strategies. The channels have been classified to one of the
communication strategies then their data has been analyzed for references including or
excluding the different strategies. Following data generation, the authors obtained reoccurring
themes based on the three communication strategies. Also, aspects of what communication
strategy were used to which stakeholder was important when analyzing the data.
The coding schedule below demonstrates the process for which the data analysis has been
conducted. Moreover, it explains how the authors perceive the concepts from Cornelissen
(2011) and Trapp (2013) and how the concepts can be identified in the data material. To begin
with, the concepts have been divided into multiple dimensions and then into specific
indicators that have been used to search the data.

23. 23
3.5.1
Coding
schedule
Concept:* Dimensions: Indicators:
Informational
One-way communication Single communication with no invitation of
discussions or means of collecting feedback
Factual information
Statements and statistics of what is/has been
done in the field of CSR presented in an
objective manner
Persuasive
Two-way communication
and feedback
Enabling two-way communication and
collection of feedback with the purpose of
tweaking the communication strategy in a
more persuasive and successful manner i.e.
listening but not acting upon the interaction
with stakeholders
Education
Educating the stakeholders with the aim of
legitimizing the company’s actions and
educating to change stakeholders behaviors
and perceptions
Persuasive/selling language
Not only mentioning what has been done in
the field of CSR, but also stating why and
motivating the legitimacy of their choices
Favorable information Avoiding undesirable information and if
mentioned formulated in a positive way
Dialogical
Real two-way
communication
Clear exhortations of further discussions and
enablement of leaving direct feedback with
the intention and ability to affect the overall
CSR strategy
Stakeholders ability to
influence
Inclusion of stakeholders in the process of
creating CSR strategies
*Concepts derived from Cornelissen (2011) and Trapp (2013)

24. 24
3.6
Validity
and
reliability
Validity and reliability are important criteria for assessing the quality of research (Bryman,
2008). Construct validity refers to the extent to which the research studies what it claims to
investigate (Farquhar, 2012). The construct validity of the thesis is increased because of the
triangulation of different types of data (Farquhar, 2012), as using a number of data sources
minimize bias. However, problems with validity could occur because of the analysis of the
different communication strategies. For example, it is important to know how much
stakeholders can influence the CSR decision-making and this is not measured to a large extent
in this thesis. Nevertheless, the analysis is based on the inclusion or exclusion of references to
stakeholder engagement. Additionally, increasing the construct validity of the research is the
coding schedule and the presentation of how the research has gone from question to the
generation of the conclusion (ibid). Internal validity refers to the explanation of causal
relationships between variables and results (ibid). Yet, this only applies to explanatory case
studies; thus, it is not of great concern to this study as it is exploratory.
Reliability assesses whether the evidence is consistent and stable (Farquhar, 2012). The
reliability of the study might not be sufficient since it is impossible to freeze a social setting
(Bryman, 2008). For example, the semi-structured interview would be difficult to reproduce
as other answers could be given at other times. On the other hand, due to the use of
documents the study can more easily be replicated, as the documents are static objects that do
not change due to time or social actors. Additionally, the reliability is increased because of the
transparent method used when showing results and collecting data (Farquhar, 2012). A
coherent research strategy is implemented throughout the study and the coding schedule can
be used to facilitate future research, increasing the reliability of the study.
External validity or generalizability regards whether the findings can be generalized beyond
the specific research context (Bryman, 2008). Due to the single case study approach the
external validity is decreased, as one case does not guarantee that the findings can be applied
more generally to other cases. Therefore, the findings of this essay only concerns SEB, and
further research can investigate if they are representative to the general picture.

25. 25
3.7
Limitations
The study includes the most recent publications and documents in the field of SEB’s
communication about their CSR strategy to avoid obsolesce. Yet, according to Bryman
(2008), when using content analysis, a study can only be as good as the documents of use. To
address this limitation a semi-structured interview has also been conducted. As mentioned
earlier, the findings cannot be generalized to other companies and industries. However, this is
not of great concern since the thesis aims to gain a deeper understanding of CSR
communication and because previous studies have been conducted on the more general
picture of CSR within communication (Gronhaug et al., 2008; Frostenson et al., 2011).
Another concern of the thesis is the possibility of being subjective. Due to data only being
collected from SEB the findings could be biased since SEB has a preference of always
looking respectable in public. Therefore, the interview was conducted to gain more practical
knowledge about statements in the documents that seemed subjective or unclear.
Another limitation could be that the authors where only able to conduct one interview with
SEB. This decreased the amount of data access for the study, but, as the sustainability team at
SEB is relatively small, one interview works sufficiently for this study and since the
Sustainability report, Code of Conduct and web page where used enough data was collected
for the analysis.
3.8
Research
ethics
In research, ethical aspects are especially important, since research has a main impact on
society (Swedish Research Council, 2014). The Swedish research council provides guidelines
and directions to apply in research regarding ethics (ibid), which has been followed in this
thesis. This research has been designed, reviewed and managed to ensure reliability, quality
and transparency. Objectivity has been followed throughout the thesis. During the interview,
the interviewer inquired the respondent if the interview could be recorded and complied with
the request. Also, the respondent was informed about the purpose of the research and agreed
to have the data shared. If wanted the respondent could be handled anonymously.

26. 26
4.
Empirical
data
and
analysis
This section describes and analyzes the collected data in a structured manner, beginning with
the informational strategy, followed by the persuasive and dialogical strategy. Findings from
SEB’s Sustainability report are first presented followed by the web page, the Code of Conduct
and ending with the interview.
4.1
SEB’s
2013
Sustainability
report
4.1.1
Informational
The sustainability report can be seen as an informational communication strategy, as it can be
classified as a one-way communication tool, due to its nature of being static and not
interactive. However, the report could exhort and encourage interaction, discussions and
feedback around the report, which would indicate similarities with two-way communication.
On the other hand, the report in itself is not an instrument for collecting any feedback or input
of stakeholders, indicating that the report can be seen as a one-way communication tool.
Cornelissen (2011) generally identifies reports as a tool for informational communication as it
is an impersonal document where the reader feels no direct need to immediately respond to
the report.
The report reveals additional characteristics of Cornelissen’s (2011) informational strategy
with the inclusion of factual statements and statistics. For example, in the introductory pages a
timeline of SEB’s sustainability actions from 2004 to 2013 is presented illustrating concrete
facts of SEB’s sustainability actions. Additionally, the report explains SEB’s process for
detecting what issues to address and the decision for which of these to act upon. All issues
are initiated with a short fact box describing what the issue is e.g. “Financial crime is a major
international problem. Preventing this type of crime is a high priority for SEB, especially as it
is constantly changing, and the consequences for societies and the economy can be
substantial.” (Report, 2013:12). These factual boxes stress the objectivity of the information
and suggest SEB’s intention of providing the information to supply stakeholders with
knowledge in order to receive continued support.

27. 27
Throughout the report statistics in the form of Key Performance Indicators are presented in
comparison with the previous year of 2012 and many other examples of statistics and
informational sentences can be found throughout the report. These objective statements and
statistics of SEB’s progress in the sustainability sphere suggest that SEB’s Sustainability
report is of the informational nature, since it factually informs stakeholders about SEB’s
sustainability efforts. As stated by Cornelissen (2011), informational communication is to
generate knowledge and simply state information. According to this, it can be indicated that
some sections of the Sustainability report is written in a manner that corresponds to
Cornelissen’s theoretical dimension of the informational communication strategy.
Additionally, the report can be identified as what Trapp calls “a one way focus on
information” (2013: 4) where the purpose of the report is to provide information regarding
SEB’s progress.
4.1.2
Persuasive
Even though the report contains informational sections many of the informative statements
and facts are followed by persuading statements that act in a way to legitimize SEB’s actions,
indicating confirmation of Cornelissen’s (2011) persuasive communication strategy. For
example, after describing stakeholders and what issues they have raised, SEB describes their
actions to the various issues. The pure information is followed by sentences motivating the
reasons behind SEB’s actions e.g., “The reason is that we are convinced that long-term high
customer loyalty and satisfaction drive profitability.” (Report, 2013: 11). Furthermore, SEB’s
main conclusions are e.g., “The analysis showed that SEB to a large extent already is
prioritizing the most important issues.” (ibid). This indicates that SEB is trying to stress the
appropriateness of their actions, telling the stakeholders that SEB is doing exactly what the
stakeholders wants them to do. However, as SEB collects the data regarding the priorities of
their stakeholders, it is not definite that the findings are valid and reliable; the findings might
be biased towards issues that are important to SEB. Additionally, indicating that the
information collected from stakeholders might be used as a persuasion tool, influencing
stakeholders to believe that their main issues are being addressed by SEB.
The theoretical logic of the persuasive communication strategy according to Cornelissen
(2011) is that it puts focus on persuading and selling the appropriateness and legitimacy in
ones actions. The effort of legitimizing SEB’s actions can be suggested by e.g., a section in

28. 28
the report where important heads of SEB departments answer questions regarding SEB’s
sustainability accomplishments, challenges and sustainability motives. In this section, Martin
Johansson, Head of Business Support at SEB answers a question regarding SEB’s main
sustainability issues: “[…] A big challenge for society is to narrow the gap between school
and work life. That is why we engage and cooperate with schools in these areas. […]”. (ibid:
7). This is of persuasive nature as it explains the issue followed by explanations and
motivations of why SEB is addressing it. The report also contains statements that suggest that
their efforts and actions have been effective and highly appropriate. However, they never
explain or motivate why their actions are seen as effective and the appropriateness is
motivated only with vague sentences. This indicates that SEB wants the readers to perceive
their actions as appropriate and legitimate; yet, they do not want to be questioned or receive
input on the degree of effectiveness.
Throughout the report many sentences and paragraphs include wordings such as we strive, our
ambition, we believe, our vision and we see. For example, “As one of the largest investors in
the Nordics, it is our responsibility to actively engage with companies we invest in regarding
corporate governance, social and environmental aspects. We believe that we in this way can
improve value of the assets we invest in, thus creating value for us and our clients.” (Report,
2013: 18). Using wordings like, “we believe” suggests a persuasive strategy since it tries to
convince the reader that SEB is doing what is most appropriate. In addition, such wordings
might be indications of SEB trying to sell their appropriateness and image, as it allows SEB to
present information in a favorable manner without providing data to back up the facts.
To further strengthen some of their actions the report includes embedded factual statements
from trusted sources such as the European Central Bank and from experts such as Klas
Eklund, Senior Economist. Subsequently, these statements are followed by sentences
motivating SEB’s actions. The report’s use of factual statements from trusted sources might
be a way for SEB to persuade the reader into considering all information stated to be
trustworthy, even though, as mentioned earlier, some sections only regard SEB’s believes and
visions and actually not real facts. On the other hand, the sustainability report is assured by
PwC that the material in the report is presented and calculated in a credible manner. Yet, this
assurance does not reveal if SEB has put focus on favorable information and statistics. Hence,
SEB might have excluded negative information.

29. 29
Conversely, paragraphs regarding SEB’s main sustainability challenges are presented several
times in the report, but, every time SEB avoids mentioning any direct challenges or obstacles.
Here statements are vague such as “Key for our success […]” and “[…] I find it hard to point
out one particulate challenge. Key for us is […]” (Report, 2013: 6). These vague statements
regarding possible challenges indicate that the report is pushing forward favorable
information instead of reporting the full picture.
Furthermore, SEB educates through conferences and events to raise awareness and to
generate dialogs around sustainability. SEB hosts the events with the purpose of increasing
knowledge and help employees perceive and establish links between their work and CSR with
the aim of creating better business. The report mentions that SEB educates employees on
some important issues e.g. how to tackle financial crime. This suggests that SEB tries to
persuade and educate their employees that their sustainability work is appropriate and that
they should follow the guidelines put forward by SEB. It is not stated in the collected data if
these events have collected any feedback, opinions or suggestions from the participants,
strengthening the indication that the events are more of a persuasive manner. Nevertheless,
there might have been discussions even though it is not stated in the Sustainability report.
SEB develops their internal culture through annual surveys that examines how their
employees perceive their situation. The questions in the survey do neither allow the
employees to elaborate nor does it ask for their opinions or suggestions. As the surveys does
not allow the employees to elaborate or indicate suggestions, it indicates that the feedback
collected is likely a tool of collecting support for SEB’s way of working instead of aiming to
influence the organization and the actual CSR strategy. Additional indications of persuasive
communication is SEB’s focus on everyday learning among employees, since this is a
technique for SEB to teach and persuade their employees to act and think in a manner SEB
regards as appropriate.
In addition, the report mentions SEB’s collection of feedback multiple times e.g. “Through a
range of channels and methods, we gather, monitor and analyze essential feedback across our
business.” (Report, 2013:10). Feedback is collected through social media like Facebook,
Twitter and Skype. However, looking at SEB’s Facebook page most comments are more of a
support manner and the information regarding social media in the report is presented as
“channels where we interact and can give support.” (ibid, 15). All in all, this shows that some

30. 30
degree of two-way communication is expressed in the report. However, the feedback seems to
be more of a supporting and listening function rather than a collaborative. Since it puts focus
on collecting for the reason of listening and supporting it resembles the persuasive two-way
communication instead of the rich two-way communication.
4.1.3
Dialogical
In SEB’s sustainability report a dialogical communication strategy is found towards SEB’s
stakeholders. For example, it is stated that: “We have a particular focus on customer insights,
but also engage in dialog with local communities, non-governmental organizations,
employees, business partners, financial analysts and owners.” (Report, 2013: 10). This
indicates that some level of interaction and two-way communication exist. Yet, it does not
reveal if these dialogs have led to any real organizational or strategy changes, which is
required for the dialogical rich two-way communication according to Cornelissen (2011). The
report also states that the Board of Directors is responsible for deciding upon SEB’s CSR
strategy. Indicating stakeholders’ ability to influence who should decide SEB’s the CSR
agenda.
Furthermore, the dialogical communication strategy can be identified with statements such as:
“We will, through a structured approach, deepen and enhance the dialog with our
stakeholders, enhance business processes and strategic sustainability dialogs with clients and
portfolio companies” (Report, 2013; 5). Likewise, the report also mentions that SEB has more
work to do in deepening dialogs with stakeholders when addressing questions of SEB’s main
challenges and issues. These statements indicate that SEB has the ambition of enhancing their
dialogical communication, which coincides with the ideal theoretical logic of CSR
communication (Trapp, 2013). On the other hand, few explanations of how SEB engage in
dialogs with stakeholders exists in the Sustainability report and the focus on enhancing the
dialogs with stakeholders, suggests that SEB today does not engage in dialogs with
stakeholders to a large extent.
As mentioned earlier, SEB collects feedback through surveys and interact with stakeholders
through social media. It is also stated that customers can submit comments such as
complaints, suggestions and complements via multiple channels. Presenting channels for
direct and personal communication is an example of Cornelissen’s (2011) rich two-way

31. 31
communication. SEB’s presence on social media can be regarded as an immediate channel for
communication; however, it does not include the face-to-face personal communication
dimension.
In the report it is stated that: “SEB participates in a range of initiatives and collaborations,
where we can learn from others, as well as contribute our knowledge and experience to
further the responsibility agenda outside our organization.” (2013: 18). In addition, SEB
participates in industry and sustainability forums to discuss emerging challenges and trends.
SEB also state that they have held strategic sustainability dialogs with approximately 100
companies. These activities present the opportunity for face-to-face contact, immediate
feedback and collaborative meetings. Yet, the report does not mention what has derived from
these dialogs and collaborations suggesting that the communication has been used for
purposes different than mutual collaboration around the making of SEB’s CSR strategy. The
essence of Cornelissen’s (2011) dialogical strategy is that stakeholders should through dialogs
with the company have the ability to influence the CSR strategy. The report never mentions
inclusion of stakeholders in the decision making process or any areas where stakeholders
directly have influenced SEB’s choice of action.
According to the dialogical communication strategy some aspects of negative progress should
be communicated (Cornelissen, 2011). This is made by SEB to some degree where they state
areas that they are struggling with. For example, “Our greatest challenge related to carbon
emissions is traveling. Even though, we have been promoting traveling by train and the use of
video conferencing as well as other alternative ways of holding meetings, we see no decrease
in CO2 emissions compared to 2012.” (Report, 2013: 32). Mentioning the weaknesses and
challenges a company faces is important in the dialogical strategy since it can create dialogs
around how to solve the challenges or how to change the approach towards the issues.
Avoiding mentioning negative progress diminishes stakeholders’ power to influence since
they are not fully informed about all aspect of the strategy.
The Sustainability report presents contact persons with e-mail addresses and phone numbers
creating a channel for stakeholders to seek dialogs with SEB. It also presents the opportunity
to give personal feedback and face-to-face contact. On the contrary, the contacts are not
presented in a manner that exhorts or encourages stakeholders to give direct feedback.

32. 32
Indicating that the main purpose of the contact details are not for stakeholders to give input on
the report and SEB’s sustainability work.
4.2
SEB’s
sustainability
web
page
4.2.1
Informational
In comparison to the Sustainability report, SEB’s web page might be seen as even more
informational because SEB is using short push information and elaborate less on the
communication presented. For example, SEB’s sustainability web page contains in a
straightforward manner a list of international codes and agreements that SEB support.
Additionally, it includes factual statements about SEB’s business priorities and all the
business priorities are structured in the same manner, beginning with the heading “What’s the
issue?”, followed by a short section describing the problem, where SEB relatively objectively
describes what issues exist for SEB and their stakeholders. For example, “To address the
many social and environmental challenges the world faces, new thinking, innovations and
financial assistance are needed.” Here statements of what SEB has and will do with regards to
the issue in question is also described, however, always after explanations of why the issue is
important to SEB and what they want to achieve. The site also presents an overview of SEB’s
sustainability governance in an objective way i.e. simply stating the various groups and
committees. The site also includes a list of SEB policies and position statements in an
informational manner. All in all, the information on the web page is similar to the
sustainability report, however, a lot less detailed. On the other hand, the web page directs the
reader to the Sustainability report if more information is desired. Hence, the web page could
be seen as a first communication channel to SEB’s sustainability work and if the reader wants
to interact more with the company other channels like the Sustainability report or the Code of
Conduct exists.
Furthermore, the web page can be identified as a one-way communication channel as it does
not invite or allow any direct communication and feedback. For example, the web site could
have had a survey form where readers can give input or added a shortcut to their Facebook
page. Additionally, it is written in an impersonal way, pushing concrete information instead of
encouraging collaboration. The Sustainability report is more informational by itself than a

33. 33
web site, since a web site can present opportunities for two-way communication. Because
SEB fails to exhort any two-way communication or feedback and due to its less detailed and
factual knowledge around SEB’s sustainability work it can be identified as informational.
4.2.2
Persuasive
The persuasive strategy involves company attempts to persuade stakeholders of the
worthiness of its decisions and actions (Trapp, 2013). Since, SEB writes several times that
what they are doing is relevant e.g. “Clear and effective structures for responsibility
distribution ensure that SEB's sustainability efforts address relevant issues and that they are
implemented across the entire company”, it suggests correspondence with the persuasive
strategy. Additionally, the structure of the business priorities with headings such as “What’s
the issue?”, “Why is it important to SEB?” and “What we want to achieve” helps build a
persuasive text.
The site includes sentences such as: “Based on a solid foundation of ethical behavior, we
contribute to better corporate governance in the banking sector, protect the environment and
increase our community involvement.” however, not really including how they actually
contribute. Thus, indicating that SEB is trying to persuade the readers that they are successful
and that their actions are legitimate, rather than only informing what has been done.
There is also some degree of education on the site e.g. “In a society with a high rate of
change, where uncertainty and complexity increases, there is a growing need to feel secure
and confident […] At SEB, we believe that trust and relationship with our customers is key to
our success. By constantly striving for clarity and transparency, by offering high quality of
advice and supplies, we take responsibility for always doing our best for our customers.” This
suggests the intention of trying to change the readers’ knowledge, due to the educational
language of explaining a phenomenon and what feelings one should have towards them.
Additionally, there are statements suggesting the legitimacy of SEB’s choices e.g. “We want
to support our customers, create value for our shareholders and contribute to society as a
whole. To achieve this, we need to work closely together with customers, employees,
investors, suppliers and other strategic partners”. Yet, SEB never state how they work closely
with their stakeholders and they do not invite any stakeholders to give feedback or to express

34. 34
their opinions regarding SEB’s work. This might indicate that SEB is not actively seeking to
engage with stakeholders. On the other hand, there are two contacts present on the site, both
with phone number and email, indicating that some degree of interaction is possible.
However, as stated previously only presenting the contacts enables two-way communication,
but it does not invite or encourage collaboration. Therefore, stakeholders might tend to not
seek communication or give immediate feedback.
4.2.3
Dialogical
Throughout the site SEB mentions their desire of creating transparency and dialogs e.g. “We
want to be open and transparent and increase the possibilities to establish a frank and robust
dialog”. Nonetheless, this is more of a vision than reality since little invitation to dialog exists
on the web page. For example, the sustainability report mention that SEB interact with its
stakeholders through social media but on their web page there is no link to possible social
media channels making it more difficult to interact with SEB through their web page.
Additionally, the web page does not provide any tools for direct personal communication and
it only provides two contacts.
Conversely, SEB has a clear example of how they create dialog with other businesses. For
example, SEB state that they collaborate and engage in discussions around sustainability with
other companies e.g. “Through our involvement in the UN Principles for Responsible
Investment (UN PRI), we collaborate with investors worldwide.” Additionally, the site gives
examples of some of their dialogs e.g. “SEB works to influence companies to improve their
performance in environment, social issues and corporate governance. This is done primarily
through dialog, collaborations with other investors and voting at annual general meetings
(AGM). If the dialog with a company does not lead to a change after a reasonable period of
time, SEB can consider excluding the company from its investments.” This suggests the
dialogical communication strategy since SEB imply that they listen to what other companies
have to say about sustainability and then acts upon it. Collaborations indicate possibilities for
rich exchange of knowledge between SEB and other businesses and investors.

35. 35
4.3
SEB’s
Code
of
Conduct
4.3.1
Informational
The Code of Conduct (CoC) is a one-way communication strategy directed towards SEB’s
employees, since it is an impersonal document that is written by SEB’s top management. It is
not indicated anywhere in the CoC that employees or other stakeholders can comment or give
opinions on the policies set out in the document. Hence, suggesting that there is little if any
degree of collaboration around the formation of the CoC. On the other hand, employees might
have been included in the process of making the CoC even though it is not stated in the text.
Moreover, in the beginning of the CoC basic information about SEB is presented, e.g. facts
about the purpose of the code of conduct is presented as well as whom it is relevant for and
how it should be applied. Throughout the CoC there is a lot of information presented, for
example, SEB explains the nature of different topics, like money laundering and customer
relationships.
4.3.2
Persuasive
Even though, most of the text in the Code of Conduct is of the informational style the
document also contain some forms of persuasive communication. For example, SEB states:
“By conducting our business in a responsible manner and maintaining a high ethical standard,
we create unmistakable added value for our customers and the markets in which we operate.”
(2012: 7). Additionally, SEB states “By building long-term relationships with our customers,
we learn how to understand their financial needs, business challenges and future ambitions –
and how we can help them to meet them”. Persuasive language can also be found e.g. on page
12 where SEB argues: “We have high business ethics and follow the rules that apply in the
countries in which SEB operates”. These statements indicate that SEB’s efforts and actions
have been responsible and that they are highly appropriate; yet, they never explain why their
actions are seen as responsible. This could suggest that SEB chooses wordings to convince
the readers that SEB’s choices are valid and legitimate, for example, SEB’s “high business
ethics” might be high in some comparisons but maybe not in all. To judge this, one would
need to know the whole context, which SEB has not revealed.

36. 36
Moreover, the CoC states that the CoC is taught to the employees through compulsory e-
training (2012: 5). Hence, indicating that SEB pushes the company ethics and behavior to
their employees. Also, educating the employees to believe that SEB’s approach is the best
way to go, however, they never state that the employees can contribute to any changes to the
CoC. Thus, suggesting that the CoC is used to some extent as a tool to persuade and educate
their employees into regarding SEB as ethical and to behave in an according to SEB
appropriate manner.
Conversely, there is a lack of statements regarding two-way communication in the CoC. Two-
way communication is an important characteristic of the persuasive strategy. According to
Trapp (2013) two-way communication is important in order to obtain stakeholder evaluations
of the company, and thereby measure their own performance. Therefore, suggesting that the
CoC does not fulfill all elements of the persuasive communication strategy.
4.3.3
Dialogical
In the CoC there are two examples where SEB encourage dialog, e.g. “We encourage and
prioritize the development of the managerial role, internal communication and dialog between
employees at SEB.” (2012: 8). SEB state that dialog and internal communication is of
importance in SEB’s effort to reach its goals and increase profitability. SEB also state: “We
encourage employees from different units, divisions and countries to learn and share their
solutions and their ways of working which have proved successful. We believe in follow-up
as a method for continual improvement, and ensure that there are opportunities for feedback
and follow-up at all communication levels.” (ibid: 18). When analyzing the CoC it is clear
that SEB encourage their employees to engage in dialog between each other to make SEB
more successful. Nevertheless, no example is found of how SEB engage and listen to its
employees. A part from these examples, no other communication with a dialogical nature was
found. As discussed earlier the CoC does not include any indications of two-way
communication since there is no means of commenting it.
4.4
Interview
with
Elisabet
Linge-­‐Bergman,
Senior
Communication
Manager
at
SEB

37. 37
Regarding SEB’s main goal with communicating its sustainability work Elisabet mentions
that the goal is to show that sustainability is integrated with SEB’s business, making it a
natural part of SEB’s everyday work; indicating that the goal is to inform others of SEB’s
CSR efforts. Furthermore, when SEB is communicating its sustainability work Elisabet
confirms that SEB uses different communication channels for different stakeholders. For
example, SEB uses the intranet and different dialogs when communicating to its employees
while they e.g. use social media when communicating with customers. According to Elisabet,
SEB uses different communication channels because different target groups have different
knowledge and different levels of accessibility. Hence, indicating that the dialogical strategy
is higher when communicating with employees compared to customers. What is more, when
looking at the social media channels e.g. Facebook it is evident that the communication is
more of a supporting function than a channel for communicating around SEB’s CSR strategy.
In the Sustainability report a lot of focus is put on different types of dialogs with different
stakeholders, but little information is presented about how these dialogs work in reality. When
Elisabet explains more about these dialogs she mentions, “in relation to customers we have
different types of focus groups, for example, where we analyze need and demand” and
information about staff opinions is collected through a yearly study conducted through, for
example, questionnaires and internal chats where the co-workers can ask questions
anonymous. Regarding customers, it seems as if the dialogs are more of the persuasive two-
way communication than the dialogical and rich two-way communication, since the
information is gathered to understand customers’ needs and demand. Hence, suggesting that
the feedback has limited if any ability to influence SEB’s CSR strategy formation. According
to Trapp (2013) the essence of the dialogical strategy is that corporations involve their
stakeholders in decision-making processes and creating a model of mutual responsibility. As
previously suggested, customers might not be involved in the CSR decision-making process
to a big degree, but, rather to support SEB in mapping out what their customers’ wants and
need are. Thus, indicating a more persuasive communication strategy, collecting feedback to
receive continued support. Regarding employees, it can also be suggested that it is more of a
persuasive communication, since they are encouraged to post questions, not suggestions.
However, since they are able to post questions anonymously it might suggest some level of
honesty and criticality in the communication, which indicates some dialogical strategy. Yet,
the anonymity does not guarantee that the decision makers will do more than listen, thus, they
might not act upon the information gathered.

38. 38
Moreover, she mentions that NGOs are another stakeholder where communication is made
through physical meetings where SEB and the NGOs meet to talk and discuss about important
issues. SEB also engage in dialog and collaboration with other banks to see how they work
with sustainability. The dialogical strategy constructs on the logic of rich exchanges i.e.
having personal contact where the stakeholders have the ability to directly comment and give
immediate responses. These dialogs build on personal meetings and collaboration, hence,
coinciding with Cornelissen’s (2011) dialogical strategy. Nevertheless, it is difficult to sate if
these dialogs lead to any changes at SEB and if the decision makers actually are present
during these meetings or not. Additionally, Elisabet states that:
We think it is incredibly important to emphasize that we are part of society and we want to
help improve it. We want to run it the right way, because, we feel that we have responsibility
for it. There's no one else who takes the responsibility from our standpoint, and then we have
to listen to it and actually take it, not just listen and then just think it sounds good. But in
some cases change our work and process according to the needs that exist.
Hence, suggesting that SEB does in some cases change their strategy after listening to
stakeholders. Yet, it still indicates that SEB’s decision-makers decide upon the strategy and
finalize any decisions. Indicating that SEB first and foremost concentrate on issues that are
important to SEB and in cases where stakeholders views are in line or not too far from SEB’s
own vision they might adapt their strategy to fit better with stakeholders views. Stressing that
these dialogs can affect to some degree, however, stakeholders are not included in the actual
decision-making process, which is one of the dimensions of the dialogical strategy.
When asking how SEB decides which sustainability aspects are most important Elisabet
answers that it was decided in 2009 during a big workshop with hundreds of people working
at SEB and managers on different levels. After the workshop SEB’s CSR-strategy was
decided. This workshop stresses that stakeholders such as employees actually has some ability
to influence the strategy formation of SEB’s CSR strategy. Also, indicating that during the
workshops they have the ability to directly and personally comment on the CSR strategy
formation. What is more, the workshop also indicates that employees to some degree are
involved in negotiations and dialogs around the actual decision-making process of SEB’s
CSR strategy formation. This is an important dimension of the dialogical strategy, which
focus is on negotiations and engagement with stakeholders according to Trapp (2013).

39. 39
Regarding how SEB stands in communicating sustainability efforts that have progressed
negatively or that might risk gaining bad publicity, Elisabet answers by emphasizing that SEB
always tries to be as transparent as possible and she cannot come up with any example of
when SEB has kept something a secret. According to Elisabet SEB needs to be open and they
would not try to shield work that has not gone according to the plan. The ability to openly
communicate on both positive and negative progress is an important dimension of the dialog
strategy, since it allows stakeholders to see the whole picture. Additionally, it gives the
stakeholders the ability to judge and support suggestions to the challenges presented. Only
providing a positive image would indicate a persuasive communications strategy according to
Cornelissen (2011).
On the question about how SEB manage to make their work as transparent as possible she
mentions some challenges like “An area that we, for example, want to put more work into is
our role as owners,… for example, in Scania or Telia Sonera, if they are in trouble, which
Telia has been, then maybe we should be a little clearer about where we stand on the issue
externally” and “We of course also want SEBgroup.com to be more transparent in terms of
how we position ourselves in matters of ownership and we have done some work during the
last year and it is even clearer about how we want to come out with news, activities and
decisions that we have taken on”. These examples stresses that SEB wants to improve its one-
way communication through becoming better at informing different stakeholders about where
they stand as owners. Hence, indicating an informational strategy since it only intends to
provide more information to the stakeholders.
Furthermore, Elisabet explains that SEB has a close dialog with WWF about how SEB should
be able to reach their environmental goals. On how SEB works with WWF to improve their
environmental goals she mentions: “…WWF can criticize us and say that this is not
reasonable, you have to think in a completely different way… Maybe we do not ask them for
advice, but, we listen to what they say and we realize of course that we must change in some
other way to reach this goal”. This statement also stresses SEB’s persuasive approach, as it
puts focus on listening, yet SEB do all of the decision-making by themselves. This indicates
that the communication with different NGOs is not intended to result in company change, but
instead SEB seeks feedback from NGOs to obtain a good stakeholder evaluation of the
company. Furthermore, this type of communication seems more strategic than sustainable,

40. 40
which is similar to the findings from van Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008), stating that most
dialogs with NGOs is strategic instead of sustainable.
When discussing which stakeholders the Sustainability report is targeted for, Elisabet mention
customers, investors, staff members, NGOs and analysts. She also mentions what SEB is
explaining in the report “we are describing what we do here and what we want to do in the
future and partly what we have not done as well, and we are trying to be as clear as possible
where we know we have things left to deal with”. This statement indicates a desire of using the
informational strategy in the sustainability report, since they want to put focus on describing
what they do. Additionally, when stating they wish to be as clear as possible, it suggests an
objective communication strategy.
Regarding SEB’s process for collecting feedback from different stakeholders, Elisabet
explained that, last year, SEB started collecting information and feedback from different
stakeholders and started to look into how SEB could integrate stakeholders’ opinions in their
business. This was systematically done through external and internal interviews, which later
got coded into different excel documents. This type of communication leans towards a
dialogical communication strategy, since it includes the possibility for stakeholders to interact
and influence SEB’s sustainability work (Trapp, 2013). It is an example of negotiation
between stakeholders and SEB, which can be labeled as the dialog strategy (ibid). In addition,
the collection through face-to-face interview indicates the possibility for direct and personal
comments. On the contrary, the finalized excel documentation suggests that the real decision
makers are not involved in the interviewing and collection of feedback, but, only receives an
excel file with the findings. Thus, suggesting limited influential power generated from the
feedback and the lack of negotiation and face-to-face discussion with the decision-makers.
Moreover, it is hard to find examples of when SEB has changed something due to the
collected feedback from the stakeholders. However, since it is stated that SEB started the
process of collecting feedback last year, it could be too early to find specific actions taken
towards changing SEB’s CSR strategy.
When discussing what the communication with SEB’s co-workers looks like, Elisabet
mentions electronic tutorials as well as different presentations. For example, Elisabet and her
colleagues travel around to different groups presenting SEB’s sustainability work. This
implies that SEB uses the informational strategy when communicating to its employees. As

41. 41
stated by Elisabet SEB communicates through electronic tutorials and presentations, which
indicates one-way communication strategy with the intention to build staff awareness and
simply spreading information. Likewise, the educational aspect of using electronic tutorials
could be of the persuasive strategy, since they might focus on changing employees’
perception and knowledge regarding SEB’s sustainability work; also, emphasizing the
legitimacy of SEB’s actions.
Furthermore, Elisabet highlights that SEB has been using a program called “Your SEB” where
different meetings have been held with the goal to start a dialog about how SEB could
improve. According to Elisabet 16 000 employees have attended the meetings and sometimes
sustainability questions have been discussed. These meetings correspond to the dialogical
communication strategy since SEB invites its employees to discuss what points to improve
and also to give suggestions on how to improve these issues. However, it is not clear if these
meetings have led to any changes. Yet, it still shows correspondence to the dialogical strategy
since the employees are encouraged to discuss SEB’s strategy and give advice on how to
change it. Even though they are not directly included in the decision-making process they are
invited to discuss and provide input that the decision-makers take under consideration.
Succeeding, the interview continued with which stakeholder feedback is most important for
SEB. Here Elisabet answered that the customers are one of the most important stakeholder
groups.
4.5
How
the
communication
strategy
differs
between
stakeholders
The table in appendix 7.2 presents a summary of the main findings of the different
communication channels used for various stakeholders. Every channel has been categorized
into one of the three communication strategies; giving an overlook of how the communication
strategies differ depending on the targeted stakeholder group. Even though the channel is
categorized into one of the three communications strategies it does not exclude the possibility
of overlapping, since some channels are used for multiple stakeholders. The channel is
categorized into the strategy that it fits the most. As the table illustrates, there is a difference
in communication depending on whom it is intended to reach. For example, customers, as
stated by Elisabet is one of SEB’s most important stakeholders groups, yet, customers do not

42. 42
possess the power to influence the decision-making process. The data stresses that SEB never
engages in rich two-way communication with customers.
On the contrary, Employees seem to have a higher degree of power over the forming of CSR-
strategy, since they have been invited to join in a workshop with the purpose of forming
SEB’s CSR agenda. Additionally, employees are involved in the project called Your SEB
with the purpose of generating dialogs around how to improve SEB. Even though there seems
to be some degree of dialogical communication with employees, they are also subjected to
informational communication via the intranet and Code of Conduct. But they are even more
subjected to persuasive communication via educational techniques, awareness events and
surveys.
Moving on to shareholders and investors, the shareholders are invited to an annual meeting to
receive information regarding SEB’s progress and to decide upon future directions for SEB.
The annual report and Sustainability report is communicated to inform the shareholders and
investors of SEB, indicating some degree of informational communication. Moreover, it is the
Board of Directors that decides upon SEB’s CSR strategy and the board is elected by the
shareholders, indicating that shareholders can to some degree influence SEB’s CSR strategy;
hence, implying rich two-way communication. The shareholders can also engage in
discussions during the annual meeting further implying the presence of the dialogical strategy.
Yet, these meetings can also be held in a persuasive manner, where SEB tries to legitimize
their actions.
Regarding the government it can be suggested that the communication is of the informational
style, as it regards communicating via reports. However, some degree of persuasive
communication is present through forums and meetings, where some level of two-way
communication is implemented.
Continuing to SEB’s business partners and suppliers, they are invited to give feedback in
questionnaires and during individual meetings. Thus, indicating that SEB implements
persuasive communication for reaching this group. Additionally, via industry forums and
meetings they can engage in discussions with SEB. However, these discussions, as mentioned
earlier, have the aim to increase awareness around CSR and persuading the worthiness of