**3. Materials and Methods**

To address the research problem, a methodology was needed that could generate rich exploratory data based on individual perception and experiences. However, generating such data can be time consuming and the target participants were senior, very busy, and difficult to engage. To overcome the obstacles to access, while facilitating the opportunity for discussion, one-on-one telephone interviews were set up with either the director or senior manager responsible for CSR within UK-based global businesses. There were 15 interviews in total, averaging 50 min each. The firms are all 'household name' companies in the UK and are from a variety of different business sectors, including retail, pharmaceuticals, engineering, textiles, hospitality, and legal services. The firms belong to what Pederson [29] refers to as the 'high end on the CSR scale': that is, they are leaders within their own industries and have received awards and public recognition for their approach to CSR. The respondents were identified through the researchers' LinkedIn network and were invited to help with research in preparation for a regional Green Business Network (GBN) seminar on CSR in SMEs. At the start of the interviews, permission was given to record the calls and there was agreement that the data collected might be used for additional research. Respondents were assured of the anonymity of their input, although most were happy for GBN members to be told of their involvement.

The interviews were semi-structured in that there was an interview schedule, but this was not adhered to rigidly. Rather, the researcher was often prompted to ask additional questions, probe responses given, and give respondents the space to make sense of their own thoughts by talking freely without interruption. All participants were asked:


The use of telephone interviews rather than face-to-face was based largely on expediency and the availability of these senior managers. Literature about the merit of face-to-face versus telephone interviewing is mixed [76] but in this instance it was a conscious decision. If interviews generally can be defined as 'negotiated accomplishments of both interviewers and respondents that are shaped by the contexts and situations in which they take place' [77] (p. 663), then it is important to acknowledge the context (telephone) and the possible ramifications such as no sight of body language, possible technological hindrances, etc. However, advantages can also be noted such as wider geographical distribution of interviewees, reduced time and travel costs, and unobtrusive note taking. In short, 'interacting from separate physical locations can be more convenient for both parties, letting each stay in a familiar and safe environment' [78] (p. 265). Indeed, Unnithan [79] argues that telephone interviews were always a sound second method of qualitative data collection when face-to-face interviews were not available, and which during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabled qualitative research to continue.

The steps and techniques from data collection to coding followed a methodological approach, as follows: 'Word Dictate' was used to produce a transcript from each interview recording; the researcher then listened to each recording while correcting any errors in the transcript. Two copies of each transcript were printed off, one put aside for context, and one used to generate codes and data. Coding of the interview data was intuitively developed from the data [80]. For example, while the question 'what does CSR mean to you' produced a grouping of responses, other ideas (e.g., CSR as evolution, importance of the supply chain) within that code came from the themes identified in the data rather than pre-developed by the researcher. In this way, like Pederson [29], the data begins with an analysis of how managers in real life perceive CSR with codes cross-referenced between and within cases for consistency.
