**4. Findings**

The research findings are discussed in the following sections which are based on the three research questions. Table 1 below provides a summary of the main findings.

#### *4.1. What Does CSR Mean?*

A strong theme in the data from all interviewees (identified here as R#) was that the definition of CSR had changed. It was felt that the term 'CSR' was helpful only in that it was recognizable to non-technical stakeholders. CSR was felt to be the 'old way' (R10) and about 'community engagement and local suppliers' (R3), 'short term quick wins' (R9), 'reporting' (R2), 'philanthropy' (R5), and 'compliance and recycling' (R4). One manager said that 'CSR as a term moves in and out of fashion ... . but it's not CSR now, it's just about normal business' (R5). Another said that CSR 'is all about trust, reputation, and communication and how it is coordinated. It's about how you build partnerships and what those partnerships aim to achieve and how' (R8). All interviewees talked about this change in ideas around CSR and some explicitly used the term 'evolution' (R2, R8, R9, R11).

Some examples cited by interviewees about the reasons for this change were resource constraints, social aspirations, artificial intelligence, and overall values. As R5 explained: 'change comes through values. People get bored talking about money: we are doing this because we don't want people in the supply chain to suffer. If I'm doing it for that, why should I think the person opposite me is any less human?'

In preference to the term 'CSR', several interviewees said that they preferred 'sustainability', arguing that it has 'more credibility' (R1) and a greater emphasis on 'environmental risks and benchmarking' (R3). Indeed, R3 explained how ideas about the three pillars of sustainability (that is, economic, environmental, and social—or, informally, people, planet, and profits (see, for example [61]) were being updated through practice into new business models. These moved business away from linear economic models like the Doughnut economic model [81] and toward Circular Economies (see, for example [82]). Nonetheless, a theme within the data was that the term 'sustainability' could also mean 'different things to different people' (R4) and involve both macro and micro issues for business. In this respect, agreeing on a working definition across groups of stakeholders was considered useful. Some respondents (e.g., R4) said that they referred to definitions of sustainability based on the Brundtland Report [40,41] which focused on the idea that development should meet the needs of both present and future generations. Other interviewees commented that there was a feeling in business that sustainability meant something 'broader' (R5) than CSR and was about business opportunities and adding value within a period of potential crises and change rather than focusing on reporting, compliance, and cost savings. In other words, CSR could be considered a normal part of what the business does, or, as (R8) put it, an expected 'core value' of the organization. (R1) explained that FTSE 100 trends show that all businesses are moving rapidly towards energy efficiency and that this was important for large businesses because of their need to plan at least 18 months ahead. Respondents who had previously viewed CSR in this narrower way appeared to have had to challenge their own assumptions about what CSR meant and the potential that the concept holds for their practice.

The 'evolution' from CSR to sustainability and the broadening of what is considered by large businesses as relevant was felt by respondents to also be reflected in stakeholders' expectations. Indeed, much of the evolution of the CSR concept was driven by public-facing business with retailers such as M&S and John Lewis being particularly proactive. Although some felt that some stakeholders' demands were unrealistic and merely over-reactive to social media stories, some respondents felt that business credentials were not asked for regularly or consistently enough. As R9 explained: 'we have moved from can you tick a box, to have you got a policy, to show us your policy, to show us what you do and how we can work alongside you'. Interviewees felt that social media has raised awareness of sustainability issues and that this was also driving change within business. Social media heightened the importance of communicating with a wide range of stakeholders and

staying proactive with those communications to ensure that companies 'wrote their own story before anyone else did' (R7).

There was also acknowledgment that companies had a duty to work with others and be transparent about their behaviors. Recognition that sustainability was a 'journey' (R11) meant that businesses should not be afraid to admit they still had progress to make. The 'Blue Planet Effect' (e.g., R5, R10, R11) and the power of the BBC program [83,84] to engage audiences with the issue of ocean plastic waste was an example drawn on to support the view that social media had the power to rapidly drive change. Indeed, in contrast to the work of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [85] which had been striving to develop and share a similar message for years, Blue Planet was felt to be energizing conversations that were leading to a more systems-based approach towards plastic waste (e.g., R10, R11).


**Table 1.** Summary of main research findings.

#### *4.2. The Importance of the Supply Chain*

The role of, and the need for collaboration within, the supply chain was a key theme in the interviews with some suggesting that that this was the most significant recent change in business thinking towards sustainability. There was a recognition that any company looking at environmental or social impact was likely to find up to 90% of that impact within the supply chain, with global procurement meaning that companies could 'not expect to live in isolation' (R3). Public expectations of business were never greater, with a need to deliver quality of life within the supply chain as well as profit (R15). It was suggested that sustainability should be, and increasingly was, part of every conversation with every customer and every buyer: 'we ask what matters, what should matter, and what should be our agenda' (R8) in order so that agendas reflected what stakeholders wanted (R9) and a risk-based approach could be taken that explored all aspects of responsibility both up and down stream (R7). Drivers for change were identified as the Rayna Plaza collapse [86] (e.g., R2, R11, R12) for the retail sector but more recently, the UK Modern Slavery Act (2015), where most companies had been found to be non-compliant even though meeting the requirements of the Act was the new threshold to enter public procurement. R5 explained that, in her conversations with her suppliers, she asked: 'Are there any slaves in your supply chain? How do you know? How many slaves are ok? 10? 15? Is it ok if even one child is making what I buy? We are not talking about the money—but how many customers would leave us.'

The need to 'not live in isolation' (R3) was seen more positively as a recognition of the need to work in partnership throughout the supply chain to meet the sustainability challenges all companies were facing. This meant seeing challenges as opportunities for innovation and adding value through collaboration. Two broad approaches were described in attempting greater collaboration. Firstly, companies looked at local external partnerships, for example, with the Environment Agency, planning departments, and local authorities to understand how they may impact or be impacted by change at a local level. For example, R2 described how continual dialog meant they knew that changes to road design were being discussed so that they were able to explore how to minimize flood risk to a local outlet. Local partnerships could also mean collaboration within the business, for example, with research and development departments or with marketing to change consumer expectations (R7). Secondly, the notion of the Circular Economy encouraged a systematic approach; a recognition that challenges could not be met alone and 'eco-system thinking' (R10) was needed in the supply chain. This was viewed as a new way to meet customers and to understand their expectations and what could be achieved. Indeed, small companies within the supply chain were thought to be potentially very agile, enabling a large company to deliver on its ideas through innovation (R12).
