products and prices as their compet

products and prices as their competitors due to such
things as volume bed purchasing at hotels where
multiple vendors have contracts, targeting the same
locations around the world for holiday destinations,
employees who regularly move between this company
and their competitors and themselves indicate
little difference between organizations and targeting
and advertising to the same market segment in the
UK.2 The staff involved in CSR development and
implementation were not specialists in the field, nor
did their knowledge lag behind the average individual
working in any junior management position
in an average company.
This international tourism industry is also unremarkable
when it comes to CSR development and
implementation. It has begun to be affected by
certain issues, such as climate change and changing
weather patterns in destination communities and
therefore is in early stages of responding to CSR
considerations. Thus, the industry is not considered
to be a leader on CSR issues, such as mining or oil
and gas industries, nor does it lag significantly behind
most industries, such as the case with insurance or
electrical component industries.
Therefore, this case is unremarkable in every
sense and is potentially the representative of any
number of companies at early stages of CSR
development and implementation that has little
internal impetus for making CSR a priority.
Over 100 h of direct observation, document
analysis, and 12 formal, semi-structured interviews
(resulting in 11.5 h of interview time ranging from
30 to 75 min in length) have been conducted with
senior managers to date. Four focus groups were also
run with 17 mid- and junior-level managers resulting
in an additional 6 h of contact time. All information
gathered from interviews, focus groups,
participant observation, direct observation and documents
was analyzed using the constant comparative
method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Spiggle, 1994).
Case details
Company X
Company X appeared to be in a state of mild confusion
regarding CSR. Until the beginning of 2005,
CSR was seen as something that affected other
companies and was not of any real concern to them
internally or industry-wide. By 2000, companies
were aware that external groups were talking about
CSR in relation to the industry but showed little
concern until 2003–2004 when the other major
competitors appointed CSR managers. To ensure
they did not lag sufficiently behind their competition,
they also appointed a CSR manager, but CSR
was not seen either as an opportunity or as a threat.
However, in 2006, not only did the NGOs become
louder and the government talk about stiffer climate
change regulations (neither of which had really affected
Company X in the past), their key investor
asked for specific information regarding CSR-related
policies and practices. Due to the weak
financial position of Company X, and the large
proportion of shares owned by the investor, Company
X was significantly ‘power-disadvantaged’,
providing the investor with the opportunity to have
significant influence on activities and decision
making of Company X (Casciaro and Jan Piskorski,
2005). By raising the importance and urgency of
CSR policies and activities within Company X, it
gave those in control of CSR ‘a louder voice at the
table’ (TRO11), where managers recognized
the rewards associated with ‘managing CSR’. Thus,
the investor increased not only the visibility and
credibility of CSR within the organization, but also
of those engaged in CSR activities.
The two rival camps
It became evident early-on in the research that two
rival CSR ‘camps’ were developing. According to
Mintzberg (1983), rival camps are any groups at the
same level whose purpose is to defeat each other in
the quest for power. Company X began the process
of CSR development and implementation with the
hiring of the CSR manager in 2004 and her creation
of a policy on CSR that they published on their
website. She was responsible for the development
and implementation of all CSR efforts within the
organization, with the exception of technical environmental
issues. The CSR manager sat within
Department 1 with two reporting levels above her.
This position was characterized by little resource,
authority or control over organizational practices
(TRI10 and TRI3), but as the only position within

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

produk dan harga sebagai pesaing mereka karena sepertihal-hal volume tidur membeli Hotel di manabeberapa vendor telah kontrak, penargetan yang samalokasi di seluruh dunia untuk tujuan liburan,karyawan yang secara teratur bergerak di antara perusahaan inidan pesaing mereka dan diri mereka sendiri menunjukkansedikit perbedaan antara organisasi dan penargetandan iklan ke segmen pasar yang sama diUK.2 staf yang terlibat dalam pengembangan CSR danimplementasi yang tidak spesialis di bidang, atauApakah pengetahuan mereka tertinggal di belakang individu rata-ratabekerja di posisi manajemen juniordi sebuah perusahaan yang rata-rata.Industri pariwisata internasional ini juga biasa-biasa sajaketika datang ke pengembangan CSR danimplementasi. Telah mulai terpengaruh olehisu-isu tertentu, seperti iklim perubahan dan perubahanCuaca pola dalam tujuan masyarakat danoleh karena itu adalah dalam tahap awal menanggapi CSRpertimbangan. Dengan demikian, industri dianggap tidakuntuk menjadi pemimpin pada isu-isu CSR, seperti pertambangan maupun oildan gas industri, atau apakah itu tertinggal secara signifikan di belakangsebagian besar industri, seperti halnya dengan asuransi atauindustri komponen listrik.Oleh karena itu, kasus ini biasa-biasa saja di setiaprasa dan berpotensi perwakilan dari setiapjumlah perusahaan dari CSR tahap awalpengembangan dan implementasi yang memiliki sedikitinternal dorongan untuk membuat CSR prioritas.Lebih dari 100 h pengamatan langsung, dokumenanalysis, and 12 formal, semi-structured interviews(resulting in 11.5 h of interview time ranging from30 to 75 min in length) have been conducted withsenior managers to date. Four focus groups were alsorun with 17 mid- and junior-level managers resultingin an additional 6 h of contact time. All informationgathered from interviews, focus groups,participant observation, direct observation and documentswas analyzed using the constant comparativemethod (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Spiggle, 1994).Case detailsCompany XCompany X appeared to be in a state of mild confusionregarding CSR. Until the beginning of 2005,CSR was seen as something that affected othercompanies and was not of any real concern to theminternally or industry-wide. By 2000, companieswere aware that external groups were talking aboutCSR in relation to the industry but showed littleconcern until 2003–2004 when the other majorcompetitors appointed CSR managers. To ensurethey did not lag sufficiently behind their competition,they also appointed a CSR manager, but CSRwas not seen either as an opportunity or as a threat.However, in 2006, not only did the NGOs becomelouder and the government talk about stiffer climatechange regulations (neither of which had really affectedCompany X in the past), their key investorasked for specific information regarding CSR-relatedpolicies and practices. Due to the weakfinancial position of Company X, and the largeproportion of shares owned by the investor, CompanyX was significantly ‘power-disadvantaged’,providing the investor with the opportunity to havesignificant influence on activities and decisionmaking of Company X (Casciaro and Jan Piskorski,2005). By raising the importance and urgency ofCSR policies and activities within Company X, itgave those in control of CSR ‘a louder voice at thetable’ (TRO11), where managers recognizedthe rewards associated with ‘managing CSR’. Thus,the investor increased not only the visibility andcredibility of CSR within the organization, but alsoof those engaged in CSR activities.The two rival campsIt became evident early-on in the research that tworival CSR ‘camps’ were developing. According toMintzberg (1983), rival camps are any groups at thesame level whose purpose is to defeat each other inthe quest for power. Company X began the processof CSR development and implementation with thehiring of the CSR manager in 2004 and her creationof a policy on CSR that they published on theirwebsite. She was responsible for the developmentand implementation of all CSR efforts within theorganization, with the exception of technical environmentalissues. The CSR manager sat withinDepartment 1 with two reporting levels above her.This position was characterized by little resource,authority or control over organizational practices(TRI10 and TRI3), but as the only position within