Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of International Management

Motivations for corporate social and environmental responsibility: A case

study of Scandinavian Airlines
Jennifer K. Lynes , Mark Andrachuk
Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 February 2006
Accepted 9 September 2007
Available online 25 October 2008
Keywords:
Corporate social and environmental
responsibility
Motivations
Airline industry
Sweden
Culture
Scandinavian Airlines

a b s t r a c t
The term corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSER) is gaining popularity with
some studies attempting to escape narrow denitions of corporate responsibility. This paper
aims to develop a model that illustrates how various external, sector-specic and internal
inuences for CSER are interpreted, and then shaped into action at the level of the rm. Using
an in-depth case study approach, this model is then applied to one rm Scandinavian Airlines
(SAS). Developing an understanding of the gurative black box of SAS's motivations contributes
to unlocking the reasons why corporations are choosing (or not) to commit to CSER. If these
reasons are known, they can be used to develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure that CSER is
an important aspect of a company's decision-making regime. Findings of the case study provide
further evidence that motivations cannot be looked at in isolation of sectoral and cultural
contexts. Secondly, it was seen how catalysts the lens through which a rm sees and
interprets motivations can have an important impact in its level of commitment to CSER.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Over the past few years the Canadian documentary The Corporation has been making waves at business schools throughout North
America and beyond. Corporations are made up of individuals whose values, goals and ideals often clash with the rigour and inexibility
set in laws and institutional structures that guide the operation of corporations (Bakan, 2004). It is within this context that the issue of
corporate social and environmental responsibility sits, torn between social consciousness and shareholder prots. Increasingly, however,
corporations are realizing for varying reasons that being environmentally and socially conscious makes good business sense.
Numerous studies have examined motivations for environmental responsibility (e.g. Annandale and Taplin, 2003; Bansal and
Roth, 2000; Khanna and Anton, 2002) as well as the motivations for social responsibility (e.g. Anderson and Bieniaszewska, 2005;
Bendell et al., 2005; Bichta, 2003; Tullberg, 2005), and there is increasing trend in looking at corporate social and environmental
responsibility (CSER) in unison (e.g. Egri et al., 2004; Lund-Thomsen, 2004).
This paper builds upon the existing literature by, rstly, developing a model that illustrates the relationships between various
inuences on CSER, and, secondly, exploring how this model applies to one rm, Scandinavian Airlines (SAS), by using an in-depth
case study approach. This model-case study approach is used to explore the following questions:
1. What internal, sector-specic and external factors inuence the interpretation of a rm's motivations and, ultimately, its level of
commitment to CSER?
2. How do the motivations for social and environmental responsibility of a rm compare in terms of similarities and differences?
Testing the model on one rm allows us to look at the relationship between the inuences on CSER and how they are
interpreted within the organization. Prakash (2000) cites that there is an inadequate understanding of the internal processes that

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 888 4567x35487; fax: +1 519 746 0292.
E-mail addresses: jklynes@fes.uwaterloo.ca (J.K. Lynes), mark.andrachuk@gmail.com (M. Andrachuk).
1075-4253/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.intman.2007.09.004

378

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

lead a rm to adopt, or not adopt, environmental policies, arguing that an examination of intra-rm dynamics is required to
supplement the existing literature on external pressures that rms face (see also Gilley et al., 2000). Developing an understanding
of the gurative black box of SAS's motivations contributes to unlocking the reasons why corporations are choosing (or not) to
commit to CSER. If these reasons are known, they can be used to develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure that CSER is an
important aspect of a company's decision-making regime. Although some studies have looked at a survey of sectors or crosssectoral companies (e.g. Egri et al., 2004; Lund-Thomsen, 2004), few studies have examined motivations for CSER in depth with one
company. This is the rst study to look at CSER in relation to the airline industry.
The airline industry provides an appealing backdrop to this paper. To date, much of the literature concerning the motivations for
CSER concentrates on heavy industries such as the mining, chemical and energy sectors; moreover, there is a paucity of research on
CSER in the service sector (i.e. Cspedes-Lorente et al., 2003; Kirk, 1998). Although commercial aviation is part of the service sector,
it possesses several characteristics similar to those of manufacturing industries, including intense regulation, high entry barriers,
high capital costs, and tendencies towards oligopolies (Clancy, 2001). The airline industry thus presents an interesting
juxtaposition between these two sectors. Furthermore, air emissions, the largest environmental impact of aircraft, are often
excluded from regulatory attempts at controlling environmental impact, thus, demonstrating a need for CSER in the airline sector.
2. Dening CSER: various interpretations of one common goal
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be dened in basic terms as the voluntary commitment of a rm to contribute to social
and environmental goals (European Commission, 2002). Under this denition, environmental responsibility is an implied part of
social responsibility, even if the word environment is not included in the CSR acronym. Indeed, numerous studies use the term
CSR in discussions on corporate greening (Graff Zivin and Small, 2005; Fig, 2005; Tschopp, 2005). One argument for this is that the
natural environment is considered one of many stakeholders, and thus, if a rm is acting socially responsible to its stakeholders,
being accountable to the natural environment is a part of this larger responsibility. In recent times, the term corporate social and
environmental responsibility (CSER) has gained popularity with some studies that are attempting to escape narrow denitions of
corporate responsibility (Egri et al., 2004; Lund-Thomsen, 2004; McIntosh, 2003; Rosenberg, 2004; Schaefer, 2004). The denition
of CSER is similar to CSR, in that it refers to the commitment of rms to contribute to both social and environmental goals. Common
themes emerge from the literature that help further dene CSER, including: regulatory compliance, voluntary initiatives,
accountability, communication and transparency as well as institutionalization of environmental and social issues (based on
discussions by Fischer and Schot, 1993; Garsten, 2003; Gibson, 1999; Lund-Thomsen, 2004; Lyon, 2004; McIntosh, 2003; Oketch,
2004; Prakash, 2000; Rondinelli and Berry, 2000; Welford and Starkey, 1996). Our use of the term CSER is intended to draw out
content from the literature that explores the relationships between motivations for both social and environmental responsibility.
2.1. Developing a model of motivations for corporate social and environmental responsibility at the level of the rm
What drives a rm to be committed to social and environmental issues can be unpacked into dynamic layers of internal, sectorspecic and external inuences. While many studies provide descriptions of a rm's CSER motivations both within and across
sectors (e.g. Bansal and Roth, 2000; Egri et al., 2004; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996; Sharma, 2000), there is a need to bring this
literature together in a way that addresses, in a systematic way, the interaction of these inuences at the level of the rm. Based on
an extensive review of the literature, we have developed a model (Fig. 1) to illustrate how a rm rst processes and interprets
motivations derived from external and sector-specic inuences, and then make decisions regarding its level of commitment
towards social and/or environmental issues.
There are four parts to the model. Part I introduces four broad external and sector-specic systems of inuence (market
systems, political systems, social systems and scientic systems) that impact how a rm operates (Renn, 2001). Part II lists a rm's
possible motivations for CSER, based on combinations of the four systems of inuence. Part III proposes ways in which motivations
are mobilized within a rm through various catalysts such as internal leadership and the nancial position of the organization. Part
IV presents the resulting level of commitment to CSER that a rm demonstrates based on its interpretation of Parts IIII of the
model. The four components of this model provide a systematic approach to analyzing motivations for CSER at the level of the rm
and will be used in this as a basis for discussing the results of the SAS case study.
2.1.1. Part I: the four systems of inuence
Firms are inuenced by a variety of external and sector-specic factors such as available technology, political leadership, the
state of the economy, industry standards and agreements and so on. These inuences can be more broadly described in terms of
four systems of inuence (Renn, 2001: 4289):
The market system where policy development is based on a costbenet analysis of the advantages to the company within the
marketplace.
Politicalinstitutional system where policy development is based on the political culture and system of government within
which the business operates.
Scientic system where policy development is made based on scientic knowledge of cause and consequence.
Social system where policy development is made as a result of the sharing of knowledge about market, political and scientic
systems.

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

379

Fig. 1. A conceptual model of the inuences, motivations and catalysts on a rm's level of commitment towards corporate social and environmental responsibility.

380

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

Renn's (2001) discussion of these four systems applies to public policy development, however, the position taken in this paper
is that these four systems are also relevant in corporate commitment and decision-making (see also Lynes and Dredge, 2006). Not
only does each of the fours systems inuence how a rm operates, the relationships between the systems are also noteworthy
(illustrated by the diagonal arrows on the model). For example, a country's political system and social system can lead businesses
to seek legitimation in the form of acknowledgment as a good corporate citizen.
2.1.2. Part II: motivations
The four systems of inuence help determine what will motivate a particular rm. A number of themes emerge from the
literature regarding a rm's motivations for social and environmental commitment. These themes are based on discussions by
Annandale and Taplin (2003), Bansal and Roth (2000), Bull (2003), Henriques and Sadorsky (1996), Kiernan (2001), Prakash (2000),
Sharma (2000), and Tullberg (2005) and include:

Long-term nancial strategy (e.g. investing in efcient and low-emission technologies);

Eco-efciencies (e.g. reduction in expenses as a result of savings achieved through waste reduction);
Competitive advantage;
Good corporate citizenship;
Image enhancement;
Stakeholder pressures; and
A desire to avoid or delay regulatory action.

Not all of these motivations apply to every rm; and some motivations are more relevant to the E in CSER than the S. For
example, literature on corporate environmental responsibility often makes reference to nancial motivations achievable in the
short to medium term through eco-efciencies (e.g. Kiernan, 2001; Hart, 1995), while the direct gains that can be made by a rm
that commits to social responsibility are less tangible.
2.1.3. Part III: catalysts
Catalysts help shape inuences by acting as a medium for encouraging/discouraging CSER. Examples of catalysts include the
nancial position of a rm, internal leadership within the rm as well as the culture in which the rm operates. We dene culture
here using Annandale and Taplin's (2003: 907) denition of jurisdictional culture: the differences in countries' languages,
religions, social organizations, laws, politics, education systems, values and attitudes affect the relationship between individuals,
organizations and the political domain. Internal leadership, in the form of an environmental champion is often identied as being
strongly inuential in the degree to which a rm takes on corporate environmental responsibility, while social champions do not
appear as prominently in the empirical evidence on motivations for social responsibility.
When considering culture as a catalyst, Egri et al. (2004) assert that CSER may be more effective in certain cultures. Branzei et al.
(2001: 288) note that culture shapes individual values and serves as a broad context in guiding the actions of individual and
corporate actors, endorsing specic ideologies governing the relationships between rms and their natural environment, and
shaping social expectations regarding the adequacy of corporate acts. Hofstede (1984) contends that the ways in which an
organization operates including motivations, leadership and decision-making is a function of national culture. While these
studies acknowledge the importance of culture in enhancing the commitment of corporations to CSER, the importance in a rm's
interpretation of these inuences is under-explored on a case-by-case basis.
2.1.4. Level of commitment
We use the term commitment here to encompass the degree to which a rm will participate in CSER in terms of its pledges to
take a course of action, responsibility taken for its action, level of involvement with environmental and social issues, as well as its
dedication to improve the rm's performance in these areas (Keogh and Polonsky, 1998; Winn and Angell, 2000; Zeffane et al.,
1995). A rm's commitment to CSER could be demonstrated through corporate policies, personnel employed to oversee social and
environmental performance within the rm, external validation and reporting mechanisms that a rm uses as well as internal
indicators for continual improvement.
Based on the four main components of this model, the motivations for commitment to CSER of SAS will be explored.
3. Research approach
Against this background, a case study of SAS's reasons for adopting corporate social and environmental practices was
conducted. Data collection focused on identifying motivations and exploring attitudes of SAS representatives towards
environmental management and social responsibility of the airline in relation to our CSER model. This case study used a mixed
method approach that included conducting in-depth interviews and document analysis. More specically, we examined SAS's
environmental, nancial and sustainability reports for the last ten years as well as SAS's internal procedures regarding
environmental and social issues. To determine the motivations inuencing SAS's approach to corporate social and environmental
responsibility, 32 semi-structured interviews were conducted, including nine preliminary interviews to gain background
information and determine appropriate questions to include in the second set of interviews (see Table 1). A schedule of
interviewees was developed initially from contacts with industry members and from the preliminary interviews.

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

381

Table 1
Summary of interviews conducted for SAS case study
Preliminary interviews

Core interviews

Department/organization

Number of interviews

Department(s) within SAS

Number of interviews

International airline industry organizations

Other international airlines
SAS environmental/sustainability department

4
3
2

Environment and sustainability

Purchasing and procurement
Flight operations, aircraft maintenance and eet development
Cabin operations
Product management and catering
Marketing and communications
Finance and investor relations
Other interviews
International airline industry organizations
Swedish airline industry organization
SAS supplier
Total

4
3
3
2
2
2
2

Total

3
1
1
23

While many empirical studies of motivations for CSR or CSER focus on gathering information from the environmental/
sustainability manager of an organization, the range of management and employees interviewed for this study allowed a more
holistic perspective to be developed in relation to the environmental and social motivations of SAS.
The main set of interviews was conducted in Stockholm over a period of six weeks in 2002, at SAS's headquarters in
Frsundavik, Sweden. Follow-up interviews were conducted by telephone and in person in Stockholm in 2005 and 2006 to further
investigate the social dimension of SAS's sustainability policy (which was only ofcially formulated in 2003). The interviews
generally lasted between 1 and 2 h.
During the interviews, a diagram was given to interviewees to evoke discussion about what they perceived as inuences for SAS
(see Lynes, 2003). Based largely on the model presented in Fig. 1, but tailored specically to the airline industry, the diagram was
developed from a combination of previous research in this area (Lynes, 1999), reviews of the literature, airline industry reports and
data collected from the preliminary interviews that were conducted in 2001. The list of external, industry and internal inuences
was not meant to be an exhaustive inventory, but rather an instrument to provoke discussion. The tool proved to be an effective
way of getting the interviewees to talk extensively about the issues being researched and resulted in a rich set of data that could be
applied to the model.
All interviews were transcribed in full by the principle researcher. A deductive approach was then used to analyze the collected
data. Based on the model, the information obtained from the interviews as well as from SAS's internal and external reports was
analyzed by coding the results into the major themes such as external inuences, sector-specic inuences, market systems,
science, political/institutional systems, social systems, catalysts and motivations. The principle researcher was responsible for the
thematic coding and analysis of the data.
4. Results and discussion
The results section is structured around the model presented in Fig. 1. The rst half describes the four systems of inuences for
SAS, while the second half focuses on the motivations and catalysts that inuence SAS's commitment to social and environmental
responsibility.
4.1. The four systems of inuences with respect to the airline industry and Scandinavia
A description of the forces at play both within Scandinavia and the airline industry help to set the context of the milieu in which
SAS operates. These four systems of inuence form the basis for the motivations that were identied in the case study of SAS.
4.1.1. Market systems
Air travel has sustained almost continual growth over the past four decades. In recent years, a signicant contributor to this
growth has been increasing tourism demand and changing leisure patterns (European Commission, 1999). Deregulation and the
restructuring of the airline industry have accentuated price sensitivities of the market. Many large international air carriers have
met the emergence of low cost airlines with the development of their own low cost service. These services are aimed at the leisure
traveller or the price sensitive businessperson and illustrate that the industry is moving into a new, highly competitive phase in
terms of passenger service. As a result, airlines are feeling market pressure to lower prices, remove some of the more costly
services, and to develop a more efcient and competitive product (Pilling, 2004).
Although the airline industry has a history of being highly regulated, market-based mechanisms (such as tradable permits for
CO2 emissions and airport landing charges aimed at high-polluting aircraft) are increasingly appearing on the agenda of both
government and industry bodies such as International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The European airline industry, in
particular, is embracing market-based mechanisms. Within this context, long-term policymaking is needed in order to suit the
length of time an airline needs to renew its aircraft eet (which can take as long as ten years from start to nish). Within

382

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

Scandinavia, Sweden has embraced the use of charges on aircraft emissions to encourage airlines to use best available
environmental technology. These charges are currently focused around SAS's main hub: the StockholmArlanda airport.
4.1.2. Political/institutional system
Air travel's close association with globalization requires the aviation industry to carefully consider its role in relation to economic,
social and environmental sustainability. Airlines are generally based out of one country, but operate cross-nationally, in that they may y
to many countries. They are therefore subject to the rules, or political/institutional structure, of every airport at which they land even
though they may only be there for a few hours. Commercial aviation is also governed by the International Civil Aviation Organization,
which develops international standards for the industry and, in particular, sets noise and emissions standards for aircraft worldwide.
From a political perspective within Sweden, the Swedish Social Democratic ideology is deeply entrenched in Swedish culture as
a result of over 40 years of national leadership by the Social Democratic party. Social democracy in Sweden is largely based on the
premise that what is good for society is emphasized over what is good for the individual (Childs, 1936; Maccoby, 1991; Tilton,
1990). Basic social democratic values include: equality, democracy, freedom, solidarity, efciency, work and security (Tilton, 1990;
see also Tingsten, 1973). In Scandinavia there is a high level of social security, high average wages (i.e. the average low wage is
higher and the average high wage is lower than, say, North American averages), a very powerful labour movement with the highest
rate of union membership in the world, the highest proportion of women in national parliament of all EU countries (e.g. Sweden:
44.3%), strong labour rights for women and a high level of cooperation between organizations and the state. The stability of the
Scandinavian countries along with a solid education system and strong healthcare and social security systems means that people
can concentrate on other issues, such as the environmental responsibility of rms.
From an airline industry perspective, there is a strong push for political and social legitimation to be a good corporate citizen
because of the negative image associated with the environmental impacts of air travel. This push is coming from airlines
themselves but also from industry bodies such as the International Air Transportation Association and the Air Transport Action
Group. Airlines have a tendency to represent, and be representative of, their home country (Clancy, 2001). As ag carriers of the
country in which they are based, national carriers have a certain responsibility to uphold a positive image for their country.
4.1.3. Science system
The scientic dimension of corporate environmental commitment plays a formative role in the airline industry as airlines are, to
a certain extent, bound by the available technology offered by aircraft and engine manufacturers. Furthermore, the scientic
uncertainty surrounding the impact of air travel on climate change is also putting pressure on the industry to adopt the
precautionary principle in its management of the environmental impacts of aviation (Penner et al., 1999).
4.1.4. Social system
With respect to social systems in Scandinavia, management styles are very process-oriented and are largely based on
consensus, while still adhering to the strong hierarchical structure of the organization. Despite a high level of bureaucracy, they
manage to also maintain a high level of efciency (Maccoby, 1991; Schramm-Nielsen et al., 2004). Work is humanized with
consideration for human issues, the local community and the environment and being in the forefront, not just the bottom line
(Schramm-Nielsen et al., 2004: 166). According to Hofstede (1984), Swedes, in particular, place greater importance on conservation
of the environment than on economic growth. Scandinavian countries put great emphasis on equal opportunity and good working
conditions. In this regard, Scandinavians have the reputation of being leaders in the area of social responsibility to the extent that
many of the social principles that exist on a global scale today are based on Scandinavian values.
As proposed in Fig. 1, the four systems of inuence described in Section 4.1, and the conuence of relationships between them,
help to frame the factors that affect motivations for corporate social and environmental responsibility at the level of the rm. These
four systems of inuence are largely based on a combination of external and sector-specic inuences. By using this information as
a background to the case study of SAS, we can now examine the specic motivations for CSER that are present within the airline.
4.2. Background of SAS
SAS has its main headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, with two other bases in Oslo and Copenhagen. The airlines serves
23 million passengers per annum on domestic, inter-Scandinavian, European and Intercontinental routes (SAS, 2005)1 and is part
of the larger SAS Group, which includes hotels, other airlines as well as airline support services. The holding company SAS Group is
50% state-owned (Sweden 21.4%, Norway 14.3%, Denmark 14.3%) with the remaining 50% being publicly traded.
SAS has been identied as a leader in environmental commitment by its suppliers and other airlines as well as by representatives
of international organizations such as the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) and the International Air Transportation Association
(IATA)2. For example, in 1997 SAS became the rst airline to have its environmental report examined, veried, and validated by an
external auditor. The airline has also made considerable investments in best available environmental technology for its aircraft.

1
This gure does not include the passengers travelling on other SAS Group-owned airlines. The total number of passengers travelling on all SAS Group airlines
in 2005 was 36.3 million.
2
This assertion is based on Middleton and Hawkins (1999) as well as personal communications with the (former) Head of Sustainable Business Unit, British
Airways, 4 Nov., 2002; Environmental Manager, Qantas, 17 October, 2002; Executive Director, ATAG, 28 June, 2002; IATA representative, 6 June, 2001).

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

383

SAS cites in its 2004 Annual and Sustainability Report that its goal is to create long-term growth for shareholders with social and
environmental responsibility being part of this larger goal (SAS, 2005). As far back as 2000, SAS began mentioning the concept of the
triple bottom line in its environmental report (see SAS, 2001). In 2001, SAS made the transition of combining its environmental and
annual nancial report into one document. In 2003 the year SAS signed on to the Nordic network of Global Compact the airline's
yearly reporting became an annual and sustainability report. This transition to sustainability reporting is reective of SAS's move
towards sustainability management, as opposed to its previous system of managing social and environmental issues separately.
4.3. Motivations at SAS
4.3.1. Environmental responsibility
The introduction of new technologies that involve cleaner production and lower production costs (with subsequent benets for
the airline's image) underpin one of the main motivations for SAS with respect to environmental commitment: nancial cost
benets of environmental management. SAS management indicated interest in reducing costs by employing energy and water and
waste saving techniques. In SAS's rst Environmental Report (SAS, 1996) the airline stated that these types of projects were
planned to be, for the most part, protable within one to two years. Personnel and management, however, cited both the shortterm and long-term paybacks of investing in environmental management and best available technology:
I don't think it's one motivating factor. It depends who you speak to. I would say that, to me, efciency and costs are
important factors. The environmental work should hold a payback either in direct cost cuts or return in investment in our
image. There should be a real value it's not just for the sake of the environment, but also for the sake of the company. In
the end I believe that if you have a good environmental policy and play by those rules, you'll end up saving money
(Environment and Health Coordinator, SAS).
Senior management indicated that cost savings from environmental actions over the long term are important. In addition to
saving money, management at SAS believe that it can boost earnings by gaining and maintaining corporate customers who are
demanding environmental responsibility of their suppliers because of requirements for certications such as ISO 14000. Similarly,
SAS requires their suppliers to complete an environmental checklist. A negative environmental report from a human rights or
environmental organization can have an immediate effect on SAS's bottom line even if it is a result of environmental negligence
of one of SAS's suppliers, and not of the airline itself (SAS, 2002). Several SAS managers discussed the intricate and complex
relationship between environmental commitment and the nancial incentives of corporate greening. The Deputy CEO (and former
Chief Financial Ofcer) of SAS discussed how being a good corporate citizen intuitively makes good business sense:
I think corporate policy is the key strong will we want to be recognized as a company who takes care of the environment.
The Environmental Report, which we have won several prizes for, is only mirroring the attitude it's a matter of being good to
society even from an opportunistic point of view, we need to be recognized as a good citizen, regardless of what we get paid
for it. The cost performance is not the driving force, but I sense that what is good for the environment is also paying off. If we do
things in a way which makes people be more committed, more concerned about doing the right things, even from an
environmental perspective, then we're probably also spending less resources and [money]. I haven't, measured anything, I just
sense that it's a good correlation.
The Deputy CEO demonstrated a clear understanding of the potential and actual nancial benets associated with environmental
commitment as well as strategic advantages of being a good corporate citizen. From the discussion with the interviewees (both within
and external to SAS), several categories emerged within the spectrum of the nancial benets associated with corporate greening:

Direct and often immediate cost savings through eco-efciencies (i.e. the low-hanging fruit);
Investment in green technology that will result in long-term savings;
Operational changes aimed at minimizing environmental taxes and charges; and
Boosted earnings by maintaining ethical credibility and avoiding costs incurred by having a bad environmental image or reputation
First-mover advantages of being one of the environmental leaders in the industry
Improved productivity of employees through sense of pride
Better investor relations could be a future selling point for the airline (to both attract corporate clients and increase shareholder value).

The categories identied ranged from direct short-term benets to long-term investments aimed at being a viable player in the
current and emerging trends of environmental management. In other words, the nancial gains of SAS's environmental
management are two-fold: money saved and money earned.
Edstrm (1991) cites that in the case of SAS, management by media has been an important part of creating a positive image for
the company, in part, to achieve better negotiating power with the government. Similarly, in our study, interviews with senior
managers at SAS felt that a positive environmental image added overall value to the company particularly when it came to
negotiations with government and industry bodies regarding anticipated regulations or standards.
I want to underline that these investments [in new aircraft] have been made primarily to improve SAS's competitiveness and
exploit the potential of this growing market. The environmental gains are an added, and very valuable bonus that I believe will
enhance our image and highlight our role in the Scandinavian tradition of conserving nature (Stenberg in SAS, 2000:6).

384

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

This quote from the former CEO of SAS encompasses several elements that were most frequently cited as motivations and catalysts
for SAS's environmental commitment: the Scandinavian culture, the winwin situation of eco-efciencies and the importance of
image.
In 1995, Stenberg appointed SAS's rst Environmental Director, who, since that time, has been an inuential player in the role
that environmental management has taken in decision-making within SAS. The Environmental Director was able to justify the
expense of developing environmental initiatives such as reporting mechanisms by arguing to upper management that competitors
such as British Airways were reacting to environmental pressures and big (corporate) customers were demanding it. What is the
value of a brand? comments the Environmental Director in a preliminary interview. How do you quantify the increase in business
because of a positive environmental image? He further reasoned that if the overall image of the company is improved because of
SAS's environmental image, then the cost of keeping that department is justied. SAS does annual market research on residents of
Scandinavia on the perceived environmental and overall image of SAS. Results of this research seem to indicate that, for SAS, its
overall image has been improving based on recent improvements in the environmental image of the airline (SAS, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003). To date, it does not have an equivalent index for its image with respect to social responsibility.
Evidence from the interviews revealed that, for SAS, ve main motivations were identied with respect to environmental
commitment at SAS which closely mirror those asserted in Fig. 1 (Section 2.1): 1) nancial benets (immediate or medium-term ecoefciencies as well as long-term nancial benets (competitive advantage, better investor relations); 2) the regulatory environment
(e.g. anticipating future legislation); 3) being a good corporate citizen (from a Scandinavian perspective); 4) image/branding (positive
image with suppliers; credibility with regulatory bodies; and, 5) pressures from industry stakeholders (e.g. corporate customers are
requiring increased transparency and accountability)3. In particular, the winwin nancialenvironmental benets of environmental
responsibility were emphasized in numerous interviews of SAS management and employees. Improving SAS's environmental image
was also cited as an important motivating factor.
4.3.2. Social responsibility
Social responsibility is dened by SAS as internal responsibility to employees with respect to working conditions, equality and
diversity as well as external responsibility to humanity. In other words: relations with employees, and relations with communities.
Specic motivations for SAS's social responsibility are much more ambiguous than its environmental responsibility. It is interesting
to note that while SAS has been providing detailed reports of its environmental commitment for over a decade, the airline only
recently began specically addressing social responsibility in its corporate policies and annual reporting mechanisms. This lack of
written information about SAS's social responsibility does not equate, however, to a lack of action on the part of the airline.
Managers within SAS admit that while environmental indicators are available for all operations, social indicators are lacking to a
degree (SAS, 2005: 100). The motivations for social responsibility at SAS are strong but they are so embedded in the way
Scandinavians do business that it is difcult to draw them out, as described by a senior manager at SAS:
If you discuss [social responsibility] with our CEO he can absolutely say that Scandinavian companies are moving to a
triple-bottom line view of how they do business. You have to do this in order to have a sustainable economy, that's the
main thing to survive and even have anything in the future. But Scandinavian countries, and perhaps Scandinavian
companies, have been a little slow in what we call ethics, or morals and society with respect to [Global Reporting Initiative]
guidelines and so on because we take it for granted like child labour, the rights to have unions. SAS has more than forty
unions. It is a part of the Scandinavian way it's just part of daily life. We know that we are in a global business. For
example, we are ying to New Delhi in India what do they know of Scandinavian culture? Slowly, we are changing into a
global way of looking at it.
Being a good corporate citizen is a strong driver at SAS with respect to social responsibility however, the effort to promote this
image is not as strong as with environmental issues. Another interesting nding in relation to social responsibility at SAS is that, up
until quite recently, SAS was focusing most of its efforts on internal social responsibility (e.g. employee equity) and not so much on
social responsibility as it pertains external relations (e.g. humanitarianism). As with many large corporations, airlines are becoming
increasingly globalized. This not only refers to increased destinations as a result of deregulation in the industry, but also to the
airline industry's need to maximize efciencies as a result of the economic downturn in the industry that started in 2001. SAS has
been moving operations, such as ticketing agents, to foreign countries like India. As a result, the need for SAS to demonstrate both
social and environmental responsibility is taking on increased importance; motivations for this are predominantly image-based. A
senior manager at SAS reported:
It's fair to say that we have increasingly felt demand from the international community with respect to sustainability
reporting when you look at the demands of the Global Reporting Initiatives and Global Compact, Scandinavian values are
reected taken for granted. Now it is necessary to report them.
External stakeholders who may not be familiar with the importance Scandinavians place on social and environmental
responsibility seek afrmation that the company is addressing these issues. Overall, however, evidence from the interviews
showed that motivations for social responsibility were far less than for environmental responsibility in terms of external pressures

For a more in-depth discussion of these motivations see Lynes and Dredge (2006).

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

385

on the company. Interestingly, relationships with unions a strong S factor in CSER for SAS were found to inhibit the
implementation of some environmental initiatives. For instance, the Environmental Director of SAS indicated that unions were a
challenge to changes in inight waste management.
I'm sorry to say that we have evidence that we haven't got the right environmental decisions because we couldn't convince the
unions to change the concept the interaction between the company and the unions is very complicated. It's not only money,
it's power, it's used as a tool to gain some other benets or to protect something that you have previously been given.
All service changes must be negotiated with the unions, which are very strict on what tasks cabin crew can carry out during a
ight (Manager, Corporate Purchasing, SAS; Flight Attendant, SAS). Internal regulatory pressures can sometimes act as a deterrent
in choosing the best option for the environmental responsibility of the airline.
Furthermore, it is useful to identify not only what motivations for social responsibility were cited, but also those that were not
mentioned in the interviews or in the documents that were analyzed. For example, nancial efciencies that are so prominently
mentioned with respect to environmental commitment do not come into play in social responsibility. In this regard, nancial gains
through social responsibility are less tangible, such as employee productivity and a long-term strategic benet of having a good image.
In fact most social responsibility initiatives involve an investment to which the direct payback is negligible. Furthermore, there was no
mention at SAS of one particular person who was considered the social champion. While the relationship is often made between
environmental champions identifying, packaging and selling (Andersson and Bateman, 2000) green ideas as a business idea that will
result in nancial efciencies, the relationship between social responsibility and nancial incentives tends to be less tangible.
Certain aspects of social responsibility are so engrained into Scandinavian culture that the mention of them seems redundant.
However, given the current movement towards increased transparency in the reporting of nancial, social, and environmental
responsibility, SAS is now putting a concentrated effort in making the S as prominent as the E in their CSER reporting mechanisms.
If we revisit the four systems of inuence that were discussed in Section 4.1, relationships between various inuences become
apparent. In terms of SAS's environmental commitment, the connection between the social and political systems (i.e. legitimation/
being a good corporate citizen), the science and market systems (i.e. nancial cost/benets), the market and social systems (image) as
well the political and science systems (i.e. pressure from industry stakeholders; the regulatory structure) play an important role in
SAS's motivations for environmental commitment. With respect to SAS's social commitment, the relationships between the four
systems are somewhat narrower in scope. Financial motivations, such as eco-efciencies, were not prominent in the cited motivations
for social commitment, and neither was the relationship between the science and market systems. Instead, there were very strong
relationships between social and market systems (i.e. image) and between social and political systems (i.e. legitimation/being a good
corporate citizen).
4.4. Catalysts: interpretations of the motivations
The model presented in Fig. 1 identies ways in which a rm interprets social and environmental motivations. The notion of
culture having a large impact on a rm's commitment to CSER was found to be an important part of the SAS case study. While
culture played an important role in the development of both social and environmental responsibility at SAS, other catalysts such as
internal leadership and nancial position were only cited with respect to environmental responsibility.
4.4.1. Culture
In almost every interview, frontline employees and senior executives alike strongly expressed the importance of the
Scandinavian spirit of the people as an important part of why SAS is both environmentally and socially responsible.
I think the society of the Scandinavian countries even if we believe it not to be true is that we are simple, honest
people. And from time to time we could be perceived a little bit naive in the international interaction, I don't know. But the
upside of it is that we do things like that because we like to be that way and I think that's a driving force that's denitely
being stimulated by corporate policies. The Scandinavian culture, the spirit if you like I think we would be hated [by the
Scandinavian people], they wouldn't fancy having a company like SAS behaving badly And the airline is always a very
public type of business, everybody has a view on it, everybody has tried it and everybody is a customer as well. So it is
probably from that perspective, it is even more important compared to other types of business (Member of SAS Group
management team).
The Head of Environmental Affairs at Luftfartsverket (The Swedish Civil Aviation Administration) believes that the Stockholm
1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment had a profound effect on the development of the Scandinavian spirit
towards the environment. Another inuential factor she felt was the Swedish allemenstratt, or freedom to land, that is felt strongly
in Scandinavian culture. This was reinforced through discussions with several employees at SAS including a Materials Process
Engineer who felt that Scandinavians respect the environment:
I honestly think that it's a wish of many people that we should be good. We should not pollute the world more than we [do]
that's my driver. If I could contribute to reduce pollution of Sweden or Denmark or Norway, that would be really good... in
general in Scandinavia I think people are very aware of environmental issues. Like if you go to Greece or Italy, you know, on
camping sites, you see litter all over the place. You never see that in Sweden. People really care.

386

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

With respect to social responsibility, a visit to SAS headquarters reveals that health and safety, good working conditions and
equality are all strongly engrained in the company and the culture of SAS. The ofce of the Deputy CEO of SAS, for example, is not
much different than that of a middle manager. Ofces are equipped with the latest in ergonomic designs for all employees and one
year paid maternity leaves are also the norm. Unions are strongly entrenched into the ethos of the company. This is all evidence
that the social well-being of employees is an important part of SAS's culture of social and environmental responsibility.
In Sweden there has been a lot of debating and a lot of pro-environmental activities What's driven in the general debate
has driven a socio-trend towards the opportunity to work on the environment. Sweden is traditionally a country which has
a lot of countryside. I think it is a natural feeling to take care of your surroundings and your environment. I think its part of
the culture, and that's one of the key drivers. I think the Scandinavian culture or the Swedish culture then also drives that
we walk the talk and we would like to be the good guys (Vice-president, Inight Services).
The Executive Director of the European-based Air Transport Action Group believes that it is not just about realities, it's about the
perception. SAS will be a big promoter of the environment because of the Scandinavian culture. Culture plays a strong role in
shaping SAS's reaction to the environmental challenges that it faces within the airline industry and mobilizes motivations for being
both socially and environmentally responsible. Culturally, Scandinavian companies (including SAS), have a well-documented
history of being forward-thinking with respect to both environmental and social initiatives and commitment (e.g. Fineman, 1997).
4.4.2. Internal leadership within SAS
With respect to internal leadership, there was strong consensus during the interviews that three people in SAS played a key role
in environmental responsibility: the Director, Aircraft and Engine Analysis, the Environmental Director (and now Sustainability
Director), and the former CEO of SAS (between 1994 and 2001). Their roles as environmental champions pushed the airline to
consider environmental issues in ways that went beyond SAS's corporate environmental policy. Evidence of this was presented by
several interviewees (internal and external to SAS), in terms of how these environmental champions moved environmental
commitment to a strategic level at SAS and helped push environmental impacts to the forefront of decision-making. The former
CEO of SAS was so supportive of long-term environmental management that in 1995 he actually overrode his fellow executive
management group by approving the purchase of a new eet of aircraft with engines that produced signicantly less NOx
emissions, but which also added approximately US $40 million to the total cost of the eet (the rest of the executive team had
actually voted against this decision). The strength of the former CEO's internal environmental leadership was mentioned by almost
all SAS management and employees who were interviewed:
Our former CEO, Jan Stenberg, he was very dedicated to environmental issues he was that as a person and therefore
in 1995 he established environmental management at the very top level of SAS. And that same year, or the year after, [the
Environmental Director] was appointed and environmental matters became a strategic issue for SAS. And that was driven
by Jan Stenberg. So, that is very important, I think and it is connected to what we started talking about, that you have to
have a kind of ght all the time between the environment department and the nancial competition and marketing
because it's about where to place the resources and what is important and [Stenberg] thought that it was very important
(Environmental Advisor 1).
The Vice-President, Procurement who has worked at SAS since 1990 also spoke of Stenberg as the foundation for SAS's
environmental strategies:
I believe SAS's environmental agenda was driven, or at least heavily supported by our previous CEO Mr. Stenberg.
because he was aware of the importance of this. He did very much and he implemented quality measures and criteria for
that. I would say he was the driving force behind that.
Collectively, the three environmental champions who, as senior managers, had decision-making power within the airline, went
above and beyond in terms of encouraging environmental commitment at SAS.
The inuence that catalysts such as cultural, internal leadership and nancial position of a rm have are quite company-, countryand sector specic but play an important role in CSER. Table 2 provides an overview of the motivation and catalysts for social and
environmental responsibility frequently cited in the literature and compares this list with the ndings in the SAS case study.
4.5. Level of commitment towards CSER at SAS
The effect of the interaction of inuences, motivations and catalysts leads a rm towards a given level of commitment to CSER.
This commitment can be seen through pledges to take action (e.g. corporate policies), the action itself (e.g. tools and personnel),
reporting and external validation of its actions as well as some form of measurement for improvement (e.g. internal indicators). In
other words, what type of action results from the motivations to be socially and environmentally responsible? In the case of SAS,
the airline's level of commitment can be seen in Table 3, which provides a summary of SAS's main CSER activities.
With respect to SAS's environmental responsibility, the airline has implemented a variety of environmental initiatives over the
past decade, ranging from inight recycling programs to the purchase of aircraft with low engine emissions. SAS's environmental
commitment can be demonstrated through such initiatives as detailed audited annual reporting (responsibility for action), year-

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

387

Table 2
A summary of frequently cited motivations for corporate social and environmental responsibility
Social
Motivations
Long-term nancial strategy
Eco-efciencies (short-term nancial savings)
Competitive advantage
Good corporate citizenship
Image
Delay or avoid regulatory action
Stakeholder pressure

Catalysts
Internal leadership
Culture
Financial position

Environmental

over-year evaluation of its environmental improvements through a performance index (dedication to improvement) and
environmentally-sensitive procurement policies (pledges to take a course of action). SAS's commitment to social responsibility is
seen, for example, through its strong health and safety policies (pledges to take a course of action) and numerous unions afliated
with the airline (action undertaken). Table 3 reinforces that while SAS is strong in all four components of environmental
responsibility, its commitment appears not as strong in terms of social responsibility. For instance, SAS currently has no annual
performance index to measure improvements in social responsibility. This is not a reection of SAS's lack of initiative in this area,
but rather a lack of a formalized measurement for continuous improvement. Changing market conditions for the airline, however,
have created new motivations for SAS to promote its socially responsible image to people beyond Scandinavia. This is one example
of the link between the four systems of inuence and how a rm translates motivations into action.

Table 3
An overview of SAS's commitment towards social and environmental responsibility
Commitment a

Environmental

Social

Pledges to take a course

of action: corporate policy

Corporate environment policy obligating

all managers to conduct an environmental
assessment as part of their
decision-making documentation.
SAS requires that suppliers ll out a
questionnaire on their environmental
behaviour as well as an environmental
declaration.
An emissions calculator that provides
destination and aircraft-specic
calculations of CO2 generated per
passenger per ight.
Annual external survey of SAS's external
environmental image (compared with
overall image of the company).
Between 24 full-time personnel since
1995 plus representatives from various
departments.
Annual third-party veried environmental
reporting since 1995.
Since the mid-1990s, SAS's environmental
reports have received numerous awards in
both Scandinavia and Europe.

Diversity policy (introduced in 2003). SAS's general terms and conditions for
procurement of goods includes social
and environment elements to which
suppliers must conform.
Good health and safety programs for
employees (ergonomic furniture,
low rate of occupational injuries).

Action undertaken: tools

and personnel

Responsibility for action:

reporting and external
validation

Dedication to improvement: SAS has an environmental index that

measures their performance on an
internal performance
annual basis.
indicators
a

Annual survey of how employees

perceive their work situation
(PULS survey).

Both environmental and social

Member of Global Compact since 2003.

Not known how many employees

have direct duties related to social
responsibility.
250 unions afliated with SAS Group. 2 full-time personnel now responsible
for sustainability. b
Reporting has been part of the
sustainability report since 2003
(before that it was part of the annual
report under human resources).

None

Annual third-party veried sustainability

reporting since 2003.
Follows Deloitte's checklist for preparing
and evaluating information about
environment, ethics, social responsibility
and corporate governance.
Where relevant follows the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines
Investment by Robur's Nordic environmental
and ethical investment funds.
None

Based on the denition of commitment provided in Section 2.1

The two full-time sustainability personnel were formerly the Environmental Director and Environmental Co-ordinator (their positions have now been
expanded to include management of the social aspects of sustainability).
b

388

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

5. Conclusions
The aim of this study was to rstly, develop a model that illustrated how inuences are interpreted and then shaped by a
rm into its commitment towards CSER and, secondly, to then apply this model using a case study of one rm. The conceptual
model presented in Fig. 1 contributes to the existing literature by unpacking the layers of inuences that affect SAS's
motivations for both social and environmental responsibility and framing these in a way that allows deeper insight into
understanding the relationships between them. Application of this model to other rms, both within the airline industry and
beyond, would allow for comparison between rms within the same sector as well as cross-sectorally. In this regard, the case
study of SAS provides further evidence that motivations cannot be looked at in isolation of sectoral and cultural contexts. The
information obtained from the model-case study approach helps to explain and understand differences in levels of
commitment towards CSER and as well as differences in the way rms manage social and environmental responsibility.
Secondly, the SAS case study demonstrated the degree to which catalysts the lens through which a company sees and
interprets motivations can have an important impact its level of commitment to CSER. The ndings highlight the importance
of culture in determining social and environmental motivations at SAS. It was found that the social democratic ideology of the
Scandinavian people has a profound inuence on the level of SAS's social and environmental commitment. The Scandinavian
Spirit of social and environmental responsibility is embedded in the day-to-day operation of SAS. This pressure could be
described as being subtle, but consistent, such as the habit of putting on your seatbelt when you get into a car. It could be
argued that if the variable of Scandinavian Spirit exists as we say it does, then all Scandinavian companies would be equally
inuenced by this factor. While this holds true to a certain extent with regards to social commitment, the case study of SAS
demonstrated that other catalysts such as internal leadership also have a profound effect on shaping motivations into action.
The effect that environmental champions have on the interpretation of the inuences dened in the model help to take
environmental responsibility at SAS to a higher level. The combination of strong cultural and internal leadership catalysts at
SAS is what sets it apart from other airlines operating under similar sectoral and external inuences.
Thirdly, the case study of SAS both illustrated and reinforced ndings in the literature that there are differences between
motivations for social and environmental responsibility. By looking at social and environmental responsibility together as one
entity, we run the risk of forgetting about the distinctiveness of each. In the case of SAS, between 2003 and 2006, management
has moved towards creating a sustainability plan that, in many ways, combines the S and the E together such as changing the
title of the previous Environmental Director of SAS to be Sustainability Director and integrating the Environmental Report into
a Financial and Sustainability Report. The result appears to be a broader interpretation of sustainability at the management
level, with the action being taken at the operational level being less detailed. While the trend towards branding sustainability
might satisfy increasing demands on reporting requirements, it does not bode well for the actual level of commitment of a rm,
such as SAS, towards CSER, as dened by the model.
5.1. Future directions of research
Firstly, while previous studies have explored the relationship between CSER and culture (e.g. Branzei et al., 2001; Egri et al.,
2004) the empirical research in this area remains limited and requires further investigative research. The issue of culture becomes
particularly important when looking at rms, such as airlines, which operate in a cross-national setting where the values of their
home country may differ from other cultures in which they operate. For example, because of differing fundamental assumptions
within other cultures of what being socially responsible is, as SAS expands its operations abroad, it is having to adjust its social
reporting mechanisms to better reect the airline's commitment towards social responsibility.
The evidence provided in this case study of SAS now needs to be complemented by further research that examines and
compares the relationships between CSER and culture. The important role that culture plays is particularly relevant to 1)
comparing motivations for companies in different countries but in the same industry and 2) examining motivations for rms that
operate cross-nationally. For example how are cultural norms transferred (if at all) to corporate branches which operate under
varying national norms and values? Volvo is one example of a company which built human-centered assembly lines in North
America that went against the grain of the U.S. auto industry (Resetar et al., 1998).
Secondly, this paper presented a conceptual model of inuences, motivations and catalysts for CSER (Fig. 1) that could be used
as a base from which to build upon in future studies that complement or compare the existing ndings. Understanding inuences
on decision-making can determine the mechanisms needed to ensure continuous improvement of CSER.
A fundamental tenet of this paper is that indicators must acknowledge the cultural motivations and values of business if
they are to be deemed relevant by industry. Support for this argument comes from critics who argue that management of social
and environmental issues is a cultural construct that requires solid understanding of the complex interactions between the
natural and social sciences. Indicators that do not take into account the range of circumstances that inuence corporate
commitment towards both social and environmental responsibility the risk of failure.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (Australia), Grifth University and the
University of Waterloo, for providing funding for this research. Special thanks goes to the participants in the case study of SAS and,
in particular, to the Sustainability Director of SAS, Niels Eirik Nertun.

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

389

References
Anderson, C.L., Bieniaszewska, R.L., 2005. The role of corporate social responsibility in an oil company's expansion into new territories. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management 12, 19.
Andersson, L.M., Bateman, T.S., 2000. Individual environmental initiative: championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of
Management Journal 43 (4), 548570.
Annandale, D., Taplin, R., 2003. The determinants of mining company response to environmental approvals regulation: a report of Australian research. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 46 (6), 887909.
Bakan, J., 2004. The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Prot and Power. Viking Canada, Toronto.
Bansal, P., Roth, K., 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43 (4), 717747.
Bendell, J., Bendell, M., Kearins, K., Ives, K., Visser, W., 2005. 2004 Lifeworth Annual Review of Corporate Responsibility. http://www.lifeworth.net. (Accessed
January 2006).
Bichta, C., 2003. Corporate socially responsible (CSR) practices in the context of Greek industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10,
1224.
Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., Takahashi, T., Zhang, W., 2001. Corporate environmentalism across cultures: a comparative eld study of Chinese and Japanese executives.
International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 1 (3), 287312.
Bull, B., 2003. Corporate social responsibility: the Norwegian experience. Paper prepared for the Initiative on Ethics and Development, the Inter-American
Development Bank. www.iadb.org/etica/ingles/index-i.cfm. (Accessed 14 January 2006).
Cspedes-Lorente, J., Burgos-Jimnez, J., de lvarez-Gil, M.J., 2003. Stakeholders' environmental inuence: an empirical analysis in the Spanish hotel industry.
Scandinavian Journal of Management 19 (3), 333358.
Childs, M.W., 1936. Sweden: The Middle Way. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Patterns of airline development. In: Clancy, M. (Ed.), Exporting Paradise: Tourism and Development in Mexico. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp. 93111.
Edstrm, A., 1991. Scandinavian Airlines Systems (SAS): strategic reorientation and social change. In: Maccoby, M. (Ed.), Sweden at the Edge: Lessons for American
and Swedish Managers. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Egri, C.P., Ralston, D.A., Milton, L., Naoumova, I., Palmer, I., Ramburuth, P., Wangenheim, F., Fu, P., Kuo, M.H., Ansari, M., Carranza, M.T.G., Riddle, L., Girson, I., Elenkov,
D., Dabic, M., Butt, A., Srinivasan, N., Potocan, V.V., Furrer, O., Hallinger, P., Dalgic, T., Thanh, H.V., Richards, M., Rossi, A.M., 2004. Managerial perspectives on
corporate environmental and social responsibilities in 22 countries. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper 2004, pp. C1C6.
European Commission, 1999. Air Transport and the Environment: Towards Meeting the Challenges of Sustainable Development. Brussels (COM/99/0640 nal).
European Commission, 2002. Corporate social responsibility: a business contribution to sustainable development. Directorate for Employment and Social Affairs,
Unit D.1.
Fig, D., 2005. Manufacturing amnesia: corporate social responsibility in South Africa. International Affairs 81 (3), 599617.
Fineman, S., 1997. Constructing the green manager. British Academy of Management 8, 3138.
Fischer, K., Schot, J. (Eds.), 1993. Environmental Strategies for Industry: International Perspectives on Research Needs and Policy Implications. Island Press, Washington.
Garsten, C., 2003. The cosmopolitan organization an essay on corporate accountability. Global Networks 3 (3), 355370.
Gibson, R.B. (Ed.), 1999. Voluntary Initiatives: The New Politics of Corporate Greening, Broadview, Toronto.
Gilley, K., Worrell, D., El-Jelly, A., 2000. Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated rm performance: the differential effects of process-driven versus
product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management 26 (6), 11991216.
Graff Zivin, J., Small, A., 2005. A ModiglianiMiller theory of altruistic corporate social responsibility. Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy 5 (1) Article 10.
Hart, S., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the rm. Academy of Management Review 20, 9861014.
Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., 1996. The determinants of an environmentally responsive rm: an empirical approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 30 (3), 381395.
Hofstede, G., 1984. Culture's Consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
Keogh, P.D., Polonsky, M.J., 1998. Environmental commitment: a basis for environmental entrepreneurship? Journal of Organizational Change 11 (1), 3849.
Khanna, M., Anton, W., 2002. What is driving corporate environmentalism: opportunity or threat? Corporate Environmental Strategy 9 (4), 409417.
Kiernan, M., 2001. Eco-value, sustainability, and shareholder value: driving environmental performance to the bottom line. Environmental Quality Management
112 Summer.
Kirk, D., 1998. Attitudes to environmental management held by a group of hotel managers in Edinburgh. Hospitality Management 17, 3347.
Lund-Thomsen, P., 2004. Towards a critical framework on corporate social and environmental responsibility in the south: the case of Pakistan. Development 47 (3),
106113.
Lynes, J., 1999. Minimizing Inight Waste in the Airline Industry. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Waterloo.
Lynes, J., 2003. Getting the goods out of industry: using interactive discussion tools as a form of strategic questioning when conducting in-depth interviews.
Proceedings of CAUTHE Conference, Coffs Harbour, 58 February 2003.
Lynes, J., Dredge, D., 2006. Going green: commitment to environmental management in the airline industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14 (2), 116138.
Lyon, D., 2004. How can you help organizations change to meet the corporate responsibility agenda? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 11, 133139.
Maccoby, M. (Ed.), 1991. Sweden at the Edge: Lessons for American and Swedish Managers. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
McIntosh, M., 2003. Raising a Ladder to the Moon: The Complexities of Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Middleton, V., Hawkins, R., 1999. Sustainable tourism: A Marketing Perspective. Butterworth Heinemann, Boston.
Oketch, M.O., 2004. The corporate stake in social cohesion. Corporate Governance 4 (3), 519.
Summary for policy-makers: aviation and the global atmosphere. In: Penner, J., Lister, D., Griggs, D., Dokken, D., McFarland, M. (Eds.), A Special Report of IPCC
Working Groups I and III in collaboration with the Scientic Assessment Panel to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). University Press, Cambridge.
Pilling, M., 2004. Brand extensions. Airline Business 20 (3), 4648.
Prakash, A., 2000. Greening the Firm: The Politics of Corporate Environmentalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Resetar, S., Camm, F., Drezner, J., 1998. Environmental Management in Design: Lessons from Volvo and Hewlitt-Packard for the Department of Defense. RAND, Santa
Monica, CA.
Renn, O., 2001. The role of social science in environmental policy-making. Science and Public Policy 28 (6), 427437.
Rondinelli, D.A., Berry, M.A., 2000. Environmental citizenship in multinational corporations: corporate responsibility and sustainable development. European
Management Journal 18 (1), 7084.
Rosenberg, W., 2004. Making a prot and a difference: HP invents an organization to drive sustainability. Journal of Organizational Excellence Summer.
SAS (Scandinavian Airlines), 1996. Environmental Report 1995. SAS, AB, Stockholm.
SAS (Scandinavian Airlines), 2000. Environmental Report 1999. SAS AB, Stockholm.
SAS (Scandinavian Airlines), 2001. Environmental Report 2000. SAS AB, Stockholm.
SAS (Scandinavian Airlines), 2002. The SAS Group Annual Report 2001 & Summary of Environmental Report. The SAS Group, Stockholm.
SAS (Scandinavian Airlines), 2003. SAS Group Financial/Sustainability Report 2002. SAS Group, Stockholm.
SAS (Scandinavian Airlines), 2005. SAS Group's Annual and Sustainability Report, 2004. SAS Group, Stockholm.
Schaefer, A., 2004. Corporate sustainability integrating environmental and social concerns? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 11,
179187.
Schramm-Nielsen, J., Lawrence, P., Sivesind, K.H., 2004. Management in Scandinavia: Culture, Context and Change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

390

J.K. Lynes, M. Andrachuk / Journal of International Management 14 (2008) 377390

Sharma, S., 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management
Journal 43 (4), 681697.
Tilton, T., 1990. The Political Theory of Swedish Social Democracy. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Tingsten, H., 1973. The Swedish Social Democrats: Their ideological development. Translated by Frankel, G. and Howard-Rosen, P., Bedminster Press, Totowa, NJ.
Tschopp, D.J., 2005. Corporate social responsibility: a comparison between the United States and the European Union. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 12, 5559.
Tullberg, J., 2005. Reections upon the responsive approach to corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review 14 (3), 261276.
Welford, R., Starkey, R. (Eds.), 1996. Business and the Environment. Earthscan Publications, London.
Winn, M., Angell, L., 2000. Towards a process model of corporate greening. Organization Studies 21 (6), 11191148.
Zeffane, R.M., Polonsky, M.J., Medley, P., 1995. Corporate environmental commitment: developing the operational concept. Business Strategy and the Environment 3
(Winter Issue), 1733.