Balancing People, Planet and Profit at Schiphol - TU Delft ...

Author: Luco Overvoorde

Date: May 2012

Schiphol Group

[Pick the date]

Balancing People, Planet and Profit:

An analysis of the impact of

Corporate Responsibility on the policy and strategy at Schiphol

MSc Thesis

Luco Overvoorde

May 2012

http://www.innovatievemainport.nl/

i

Balancing People, Planet and Profit at Schiphol

Cover: A380 above forest. Source: Emirates - Green Today, Greener Tomorrow Newspaper Advertisement

ii


FACULTY TECHNOLOGY, POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

Transport and Logistics Department

Visit Jaffalaan 5

2628BX Delft

The Netherlands

Mail P/O Box 5015

NL‐2600GA Delft

The Netherlands

Phone +31 (0)15–2788380

Fax +31 (0)15–2783429

Web ww.tbm.tudelft.nl

Balancing People, Planet and Profit: An Analysis of the Impact of

Corporate Responsibility on the Policy and Strategy at Schiphol

Master Thesis

Author: Luco Overvoorde

Student id: 1317350

Course: SPM5905

Programme: MSc. Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management

Contact Information

Telephone: +31628785143

Email: [email protected]

Graduation committee

Chairman: Prof. Dr. Bert van Wee (Transport & Logistics)

External Supervisor: Ir. Liselot Hofkamp (Schiphol Group)

First supervisor: Dr. Maarten Kroesen (Transport & Logistics)

Second supervisor: Dr. Scott Cunningham (Policy Analysis)

Keywords

Corporate Responsibility, Schiphol, Q-methodology, Decision-making process, Stated-choice experiment

iii


“The price of greatness is responsibility.”

Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965), Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”

Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865), 16th president of the United States

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955), German physicist

iv


Preface This report concerns my master thesis for graduation on the MSc Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and

Management at the department Technology, Policy and Management from Delft University of Technology.

This research was conducted from September 2011 to April 2012 at Schiphol Group and would have never

been of such quality and completeness without the help of many people. Therefore, I would like to say

thanks to:

My supervisors from the TU Delft: Maarten Kroesen, Scott Cunningham and Bert van Wee. Thanks for the

contribution to the quality of the report after having interesting discussions. I met Maarten and Scott for

the first time on the study tour to China in the summer of 2011, which was the foundation for a very

fruitful and pleasant collaboration.

My supervisor from Schiphol Group: Liselot Hofkamp. Thanks for being such a good tour guide with

practical tips and tricks.

The SIM supervisors Wouter van Daal and Christiaan Hen and all the SIM students. The SIM was a real

open, joyful and inspiring place to me.

All the other people at Schiphol Group who contributed to this research and participated in the Q-

method. You were all very open and had the time to share knowledge and experiences with me. Special

thanks to Marijn Ornstein for being supportive and enthusiastic about my studies.

Schiphol Group in general for the very nice time I had the last 8 months.

The field hockey team of Schiphol for the nice Monday night games.

My parents for the everlasting love and support.

My aunt Christala for checking the English spelling in the report.

And last but not least, Jill, for happiness and the foresight of our trip around the world.

I hope you all enjoy reading the report.

Luco Overvoorde

Delft, April 2012

v


Executive Summary This research investigated the impact of perspectives on Corporate Responsibility (CR) on the policy and

strategy at Schiphol. It contains an analysis on the current role and influence of CR at Schiphol and how this

can be improved to obtain benefits for the future in order to become and stay Europe’s preferred airport.

The main conclusions of the report are:

The CR organization and policy at Schiphol are insufficient. On the main points Schiphol’s theory is in line

with the scientific theory, but the execution in practice is contradictive.

There is a difference between saying and doing at Schiphol, which is caused by the existence of different

perspectives on CR amongst employees.

These perspectives are: the communicative believer, the strategic changer, the balanced profiteer and

the numerical collaborator.

These perspectives are present between different management layers, which sabotaged the

implementation and execution of the current CR policy.

Between the perspectives, there is consensus on 1) Schiphol should continue with CR, 2) Stakeholder

input is required in determining Schiphol’s CR policy, 3) All levels of the organization should apply CR, 4)

Guidelines on CR in the decision-making process are needed.

Between the perspectives, there is disagreement on 1) the equality of people, planet and profit, 2) CR will

make Schiphol Europe’s preferred airport, 3) the need of a positive business case in investment-decisions,

4) image is more important than people and planet, 5) the role of Schiphol in a sectorial approach and 6)

CR activities should always be strategic and contribute to the competitive advantage.

‘The Balanced Framework’ enables a balanced and general valuation of people, planet and profit in

decisions whether or not to invest in projects. It stimulates that all employees at all levels make a more

conscious decision on CR by balancing people, planet and profit.

The CR reputation of an airport has 9% influence on the choice of a transfer-airport by transfer

passengers. Other aspects of influence are the transfer time (41%), ticket price (32%) and airport quality

(18%).

Having an excellent CR reputation as an airport pays off. Transfer passengers are willing to pay €55.29 for

an excellent CR reputation instead of a poor or average reputation of their transfer-airport in this

experiment.

Given these conclusions, the following recommendations and implications are proposed:

Focus on expansion and growth (license to grow) instead of staying in business (license to operate).

Create more understanding and insight in the CR-benefits and the contribution to a competitive

advantage. For instance with an improved communication and quantification of the CR-benefits.

Integrate and align the CR strategy with the business strategy to avoid a separated CR strategy. Activities

and projects should be aligned to this strategy to optimize their contribution.

Create incentives and inspiration from the top by showing commitment to and the importance of CR for

Schiphol. This improves the implementation of the CR policy as well as the external and internal

exposure. This implicates that the CEO is responsible for the CR performance that should also be linked to

the salaries and bonuses of managers.

Communicate the existence of different perspectives throughout the whole organization by workshops

for instance.

A positive business case of projects in investments-decisions is not always required.

Schiphol should take a wait-and-see role in the sectorial approach to address CR.

vi


Set guidelines to the decision-making process that first stimulate the use of The Balanced Framework’ to

create a high level of acceptance. Afterwards the use can be obligatory.

Define the balance between people, planet and profit by setting weights to each P.

Continue to invest in activities and projects that affect the CR reputation in a positive way to obtain an

excellent CR reputation. Focus hereby on experience and communication. Make the CR-initiatives,

specifically planet related, more tangible and visible to let the passenger really experience CR. Participate

in national and international CR or sustainability rankings and use top-rankings for communication.

Communicate more transparently and fully towards all stakeholders.

Conduct further research on the value of a CR reputation among other stakeholders and how the

willingness to pay of ±€55 can be obtained but only after an excellent CR reputation has been reached.

This can be done in collaboration with either the airlines via increased airport fees, the shop-retailers via

higher rent or applying premium prices to products.

Thus, investments in CR and a change in the CR-policy at Schiphol are required today, to gain CR-benefits and

a competitive advantage in the future and become Europe’s preferred airport.

vii


Summary Worldwide, the attention and awareness on Corporate Responsibility (CR) increases in the business and

social world. More information is available which encourages society. One of the spear points of society are

the CO2 emissions. Mapping these emissions showed that aviation has a 5% share within these emissions of

which airports are responsible for again 5%. Society became more aware of CR and together with an

increased media attention, the pressure on the business world increased. Society expects that the business-

world would not only do something about their CO2 emissions, but to become corporately responsible.

CR is more than planet alone. It is about the balance between people, planet and profit. Where for many

firms the focus was solely on profit, it was suddenly expected to balance profit in relation to people and

planet. Firms rushed into CR without really understanding the concept such as with Schiphol Group, the

operator of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. This rush caused the over-organized and unstructured CR policy

that currently exists at Schiphol. Thereby Schiphol applied CR to its business with the wrong motive. CR was

implemented for the sake of having it and to avoid negative opinions of not having CR, which caused several

problems Schiphol faces today. The first problem is that the CR policy is unstructured and over-organized

today. Second, there is no balance between people, planet and profit in decision-making. Third, there is a

blurred view on CR reputation and expectations from stakeholders. This research addresses all three

problems, so that the main question can be answered by subsequently answering four sub-questions.

Main research question: What is the current role (influence) of CR at Schiphol, how can this be improved and

what are the potential benefits for the future (in order to become and stay Europe’s preferred airport)?

To answer the first sub-question, a comparison between the scientific CR literature and the practice at

Schiphol is made to identify similarities and differences between those two. The definition of CR is broadly

the same, except that the Schiphol definition lacks elements as ‘in line with business strategy’ and ‘people,

planet and profit’. Combining theory and practice, CR is in this research defined as:

Integrating a balance between people, planet and profit fully in a company’s strategy and operations based

on intrinsic motivation in order to create value for its stakeholders and itself, today and in the future.

The theory at Schiphol shows that nowadays the knowledge about what should be the right motive for CR is

present, but in practice the motive for Schiphol is still mainly to maintain support for its position. Because of

its big contribution to society Schiphol has the obligation to be corporately responsible. This mix between

self-interest and social obligation is good, but the focus is now more on damage control than on optimizing

benefits. Scientific theory showed that the right motives for CR are mostly of strategic self-interest: to gain a

competitive advantage or grasp financial benefits. When firms are coerced into CR or are doing it for the

good cause, CR is far less efficient and effective. Both society and firms are better off when firms use CR

strategically than when they are coerced into making such investments. With strategic use as a motive, the

implementation process is more efficient and has less resistance.

Therefore it is recommended that Schiphol should change its current CR strategy by integrating the CR

strategy within its business strategy. Scientific theory showed that strong inspirational leadership, open

communication to all stakeholders, an integrated CR and business strategy and projects that balance PPP are

essential success elements of this change. Afterwards the intended benefits such as financial profit,

increased reputation, employee welfare and in the end a competitive advantage can be reached. There is

confusion today due to the from origin profit-based focus and the insufficient existence of the important

elements to change the mindset. At the same time this are the opportunities for tomorrow. The seeds to

viii


realize a change in mindset are already seeded with examples as the CR Ambassadors, Guerillas and

theGrounds. They enlarge the awareness on CR, but it costs time to turn these seeds into a flourishing plant.

The answer to the second sub-question focusses on the analysis of the current perspectives that are present

at Schiphol with Q-methodology. This is important knowledge in order to increase the chance on successful

implementation and raise the shared acceptance for the new required CR policy. The Q-methodology studies

the subjectivity of individuals on a certain issue, here CR, by ranking statements from mostly agree to mostly

disagree according to a given distribution. The statements are based on the scientific literature and

interviews with various people at Schiphol. The respondents with different functions, age, gender and CR

involvedness ranked the statements from a ‘me as a Schiphol employee’ perspective. After a factor analysis

and varimax rotation, four perspectives were identified: the communicative believer, the strategic changer,

the balanced profiteer and the numerical collaborator.

The communicative believer consists of relatively many managers and states that “CR is a thing for believers”

and “something you have to believe in as an organization, it is a mindset”. Having this mindset, being

corporate responsible and being transparent and complete in communication on CR towards stakeholders

are a competitive advantage to realize future growth for Schiphol. The strategic changer perspective

represents a relative large share of directors and has a more strategic view on CR. Currently Schiphol is

capable enough to realize a successful CR strategy but “without profit, there is no airport and no opportunity

to give the profit back to people and planet”, while “CR is the reason to exist today and for the long-term

future”. However, to get there a strategic change in the right direction is necessary to actually make CR a

success. The balanced profiteer represents the old profit-based culture and is more preserved and internally

focused. They recognize CR, but profit first, which together with strong leadership and an internal focus on

an improved interwoven CR strategy characterize this perspective. The numerical collaborator focusses on

collaboration with stakeholders and addresses a sectorial approach. They stand for a good numerical

foundation with a no-nonsense Calvinistic approach to deal with CR: “meten is weten”. “CR is part of our life

nowadays and given the social function of Schiphol, we should contribute to CR”. “But in the end it is still

business and we have to have something left”.

The statements which are mostly agreed upon are: 1) strong leadership/management agreement from the

top is required in order to successfully implement CR at Schiphol, 2) CR strategy should be in line with

Schiphol’s business strategy, 3) CR strategy plays an important role in the license to grow, 4) in order to

successfully implement CR and ensure consistency, all levels in the organization should apply and integrate

CR, 5) CR gains a competitive advantage. Most disagreed statements are 1) Schiphol should stop with CR, 2) I

see CR as something unwanted; an extra effort with no results, 3) Transfer passengers choose Schiphol for its

CR reputation, 4) current CR organization and strategy is sufficient, 5) CR related guidelines for decisions-

making forms are not needed.

These perspectives lead to consensus on 1) Schiphol should continue with CR, 2) the inclusion of

stakeholders is important to define the strategy which 3) should be implemented on all levels in the

organization to ensure consistency and 4) guidelines for decision-making forms are needed, which is further

analyzed by designing a new framework for the decision-making process. But more important are the

statements on which there is disagreement: 1) people, planet and profit are equally important for Schiphol,

2) CR will make Schiphol Europe’s preferred airport, 3) decisions on investments always need a positive

business case, 4) Image is more important than people and planet, 5) Schiphol should take control and

stimulate other stakeholders in a sectorial approach for CR and 6) CR activities should always be strategic

and contribute to the competitive advantage of the firm.

ix


Hence there are four perspectives present at Schiphol, it can be concluded that the overall view on CR is

quite positive with shared and consensus statements. But these different perspectives are present in

different levels of the organization, which are a cause of the sabotage of the current strategy. Also there is

indeed a difference between saying and doing at Schiphol: the perspectives show the well awareness on the

theory but also that change is wanted and required because current actions and policy are lacking. The

consensus and mostly agreed statements are highly accepted in the organization and it is recommended to

directly implement those as far as possible. Awareness on the existence of the disagreement is necessary

and is an opportunity to smoothen the implementation of the CR strategy.

Given the conclusions on the Q-methodology results, the following recommendations and implications are

relevant for Schiphol: 1) Create a clear, consistent definition on CR which contains the right terminology. 2)

Focus on expansion and growth (license to grow) instead of staying in business (license to operate). 3) Create

more understanding and insight in the CR-benefits and the contribution to a competitive advantage. For

instance by workshops, improved communication and quantification of the CR-benefits. 4) Integrate and

align the CR strategy with the business strategy. So no separated CR strategy. Activities and projects should

be aligned to this strategy to optimize their contribution. 5) Create incentives and inspiration from the top by

showing commitment to and the importance of CR for Schiphol. This improves the implementation of the CR

policy as well as the external and internal exposure. This implicates that the CEO is responsible for the CR

performance which should also be linked to the salaries and bonuses of managers. 6) Communicate the

existence of different perspectives throughout the whole organization by workshops for instance. 7) A

positive business case of projects in investments-decisions is not always required. 8) Schiphol should take a

wait-and-see role in the sectorial approach to address CR.

The answer to the third sub-question is ‘The Balanced Framework’. This framework is designed to create

more awareness in the organization on balancing people, planet and profit in the decision-making process.

The goal was to create a framework to make a balanced and general valuation of people, planet and profit in

decisions whether or not to invest in projects based on the existing process. It is important to incorporate

people and planet within the profit measurement systems, to raise efficiency but even more to show the

contribution of people and planet to profit. The literature review of scorecards, investment tools and other

frameworks was input and inspiration for ‘The Balanced Framework’. Negative aspects were avoided and the

positive aspects of those frameworks were taken into account. Based on these, the main requirements were

transparency, simplicity, flexibility and accessibility. The framework is transparent by giving more insight in

the valuation of a decision and helps to set the balance between PPP, but not too much by still distinguishing

the scale and weighting phase. It is simple in use and can be accessed directly; currently the framework is

applied to the pilot-project Lounge 2. Furthermore, the framework is able to incorporate lessons learned

during use and can be adjusted towards user preferences.

The biggest change compared to the current decision-making process is that a project is split up in three

components: people, planet and profit. The first phase of the decision-making process is scaling PPP.

Relevant aspects per P for a project need to be selected from a list of roughly 15 indicators with

corresponding units, which is a selection of Schiphol’s 17 CR themes and others sources such as the Global

Reporting Initiative (GRI) for Airport Operators. This list of aspects and indicators is mutually exclusive and

commonly exhaustive. The contribution of the selected aspects through the project is calculated, after which

the impact on strategic objectives of Schiphol for each aspect is determined. This process of scaling towards

strategic objectives enforces that all aspects are on the same scale, interpretable by the IC and so that

projects are better in line with the business strategy.

x


The scores are filled in on the decision-form after which it is checked by the controllers and submitted to the

Investment Committee (IC). The weighting of the aspects by the IC is the second phase of the decision-

making process. First the aspects per P are reduced to five, if this not already the case. Second, a sum of

100% will be divided between the 3 P’s. Thereafter this ascribed percentage is divided between the aspects

per P. This division is dependent on the current balance between PPP that is determined by the IC and the

CR strategy. In a pro CR case: people, planet and profit are equally important for Schiphol, so each gets

33.3%. But more in line with the current situation due to the old habits and current financial crisis, a division

of 25% people, 25% planet and 50% profit is more plausible. The percentages and the strategic impact scores

are multiplied with each other, so that the highest score represents the recommended project based on

strategic impact. This advice is not binding, but stimulates discussion on the go or no go of a project and

gives an indication of the effects of people, planet and profit aspects of a project on the strategic objectives

of Schiphol by plotting projects on PPP axis to validate the choice-behavior of the IC.

The framework is verified with Schiphol employees and the literature on decision-making processes. The

validation with a pilot-project Lounge 2 is still in progress, the relevant aspects per P are selected and

currently calculated, but the first feedback was merely positive. Essential first step in the road ahead is to let

experts define the value ranges of percentages per aspect to transform these to the strategic impact score.

Then the framework will be general applicable. Afterwards the framework can be used and will increase the

awareness on the balance between people, planet and profit in the decision-making. This will stimulate the

CR culture within Schiphol and give ‘hand and feet’ to the forthcoming business strategy which incorporates

CR.

In the answer to the fourth sub-question, the value of a CR reputation for an airport among transfer

passengers at Schiphol is determined. A conjoint analysis with a stated-choice model based on a multinomial

logit (MNL) framework suit the use to determine the willingness to pay for and utility of having a CR

reputation. The CR reputation is important since it is affects the business performance of a firm.

Furthermore, the negative impact or damage of a CR reputation is bigger than the possible positive impact.

The transfer passengers are an important stakeholder in the business performance for Schiphol since they

account for 40% of the total amount of passengers. A survey among transfer passengers was conducted,

whereby they were asked to choose between different airports of transfer (alternatives) on a fictitious flight.

The aspect with the most influence on this choice was the transfer time (41%) followed by ticket price (32%),

airport quality (18%) and CR reputation (9%). Although the CR reputation is the least important aspect in this

experiment, it still accounts for 9% in the decision for transfer passengers, which is if realized a huge increase

in passenger amounts given the competitive aviation industry.

The utility is only positive when the airport has an excellent CR reputation. Having a poor or average

reputation has a negative utility and will not have much influence on the decision by transfer passengers.

Furthermore, having an excellent CR reputation is worth €55.29 per passenger compared with an average

reputation. So transfer passengers are willing to pay €55.29 extra for an excellent CR reputation.

So, for Schiphol it is worthwhile to excel on CR reputation. Based on this experiment with transfer

passengers, the CR reputation plays a role in the decisions with 9% and having an excellent reputation is

rewarded with €55.29. Given this knowledge, Schiphol should continue to invest in activities and projects

that affect the CR reputation in a positive way to obtain an excellent CR reputation. Focus hereby on

experience and communication. Make the CR-initiatives, specifically planet related, more tangible and visible

to let the passenger really experience CR. Participate in national and international CR or sustainability

rankings and use top-rankings for communication. Communicate more transparent and complete towards all

stakeholders. Furthermore, conduct further research on the value of a CR reputation among other

xi


stakeholders and how the willingness to pay of ±€55 can be obtained after an excellent CR reputation is

obtained in collaboration with the airlines via airport fees or with the shop-retailers via higher rent or

premium prices for products. To conclude, this confirms the theory that a CR reputation pays off and that

the investment will be rewarded.

Overall, this research provided an overview of the current state of CR at Schiphol. There are four different

perspectives, but in the end they represent a positive view on CR. It also showed that a change is required to

acquire the benefits of CR, which there certainly are. Hereby, more inspiration and commitment from the

top is an important first step to stimulate and activate the belief in CR. It is known on which issues there is

disagreement, which should be communicated throughout the organization to increase the awareness on

existence. This will unite Schiphol on the CR issues and will incorporate CR in the culture on the long-term.

Thereby ‘The Balanced Framework’ that is designed in this research is an excellent tool to support this

required change. It increases the awareness on the importance of having a balance between people, planet

and profit in decision-making process by making a more conscious decision at all levels in the organization.

Investments are required today, to benefit in the future from a competitive advantage. After all, having an

excellent CR reputation will pay off.

xii


Abbreviations AAS Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

AMS Airfield Maintenance Services

ATM Air Traffic Movement

CEO Chief Executive Officer

Ch. Chapter

CR Corporate Responsibility: Integrating a balance between people, planet

and profit fully in a company’s strategy and operations based on intrinsic motivation

in order to create value for its stakeholders and itself today and in the future.

CROS Schiphol Regional Consultation Committee (Commissie Regionaal Overleg Schiphol)

DT Direction Team

EU European Union

Factor Synonym for perspective but a Q-methodological term

GRI Global Reporting Initiative

IC Investment Committee

IID Independently and Identically Distributed

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MCDA Multi Criteria Decision Analysis

MCRS Management Control & Reporting System

MECE Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive

MNL Multinomial Logit

MTSG Management Team Schiphol Group

NPV Net Present Value

O-D Passenger Origin-Destination Passenger

PDCA-cycle Plan, Do, Check, Act-cycle

PPP People, Planet, Profit

SG Schiphol Group. The term Schiphol will be used in this report.

SIM Samenwerking Innovatieve Mainport

SMART Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, Time-bound

TBL Triple Bottom Line

UN United Nations

WTP Willingness To Pay

xiii


List of Tables Table 1: Benefits of CR ....................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 2: Top-5 most agreed factors ................................................................................................................... 35 Table 3: Top-5 most disagreed statements ....................................................................................................... 35 Table 4: Factor arrays per factor ....................................................................................................................... 39 Table 5: Consensus statements ......................................................................................................................... 40 Table 6: Disagreement statements ................................................................................................................... 41 Table 7: Crosstab function vs. factor ................................................................................................................. 42 Table 8: Crosstab age vs. factor ......................................................................................................................... 42 Table 9: Crosstab gender vs. factor ................................................................................................................... 43 Table 10: Crosstab involved CR vs. factor .......................................................................................................... 43 Table 11: Crosstab Special vs. Factor................................................................................................................. 44 Table 12: Crosstab factor vs. special ................................................................................................................. 44 Table 13: Planet aspects .................................................................................................................................... 60 Table 14: People aspects ................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 15: Profit aspects ..................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 16: Scale ................................................................................................................................................... 62 Table 17: Example weighting PPP aspects......................................................................................................... 64 Table 18: Powerful overview output ................................................................................................................. 64 Table 19: Part worth utilities ............................................................................................................................. 78 Table 20: Willingness to pay .............................................................................................................................. 79 Table 21: Observed data hold-out sets ............................................................................................................. 80 Table A-22: Actor analysis ............................................................................................................................... 100 Table A-23: The Q-set ...................................................................................................................................... 105 Table A-24: P-set .............................................................................................................................................. 106 Table A-25: Correlation matrix between Q-sorts ............................................................................................ 108 Table A-26: Unrotated factor matrix ............................................................................................................... 109 Table A-27: Correlation between factors ........................................................................................................ 114 Table A-28: Statements ranked on consensus vs. disagreement .................................................................... 115 Table A-29: Overview Phase 1 ......................................................................................................................... 117 Table A-30: UN Indicators ................................................................................................................................ 123 Table A-31: Overview of aspects ..................................................................................................................... 126 Table A-32: CR-themes Schiphol ..................................................................................................................... 127 Table A-33: Basic Plan 2 ................................................................................................................................... 128 Table A-34: Attributes and indicators ............................................................................................................. 130 Table A-35: Indicator values and significance ................................................................................................. 136 Table A-36: Analytical design........................................................................................................................... 136 Table A-37: Part worth utilities ....................................................................................................................... 137 Table A-38: Utility per alternative ................................................................................................................... 137 Table A-39: Descriptive statistics of the questionnaire ................................................................................... 138 Table A-40: Missing values .............................................................................................................................. 138 Table A-41: Connecting flights ......................................................................................................................... 138 Table A-42: Gender .......................................................................................................................................... 138 Table A-43: Type of passenger ........................................................................................................................ 138 Table A-44: The role of sustainability in normal-life decisions ....................................................................... 138 Table A-45: Clearness of the questions ........................................................................................................... 139 Table A-46: Reality of the choices ................................................................................................................... 139 Table A-47: Difficulty to choose ...................................................................................................................... 139

file:///G:/Afstuderen/Report%20Final%20V1.docx%23_Toc323122442



xiv


List of Figures Figure 1: Balancing people, planet and profit = CR (Schiphol Group, 2011b) ......................................................1 Figure 2: Reading guide for this thesis .................................................................................................................4 Figure 3: Research overview.................................................................................................................................5 Figure 4: Aerial view on Schiphol (Picture from: www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl) .................................................... 11 Figure 5: Strategy for AAS (Schiphol Group, 2010b) ......................................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Key financial figures (Schiphol Group, 2012a) .................................................................................... 13 Figure 7: SIM-Logo (SIM, 2011) ......................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8: Phase 1: why, how, what .................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 9: The Golden Circle (Sinek, 2009).......................................................................................................... 15 Figure 10: The pyramid of CR (Carroll, 1991) .................................................................................................... 17 Figure 11: Virtue Matrix (Martin, 2002) ............................................................................................................ 18 Figure 12: CR strategy and objectives (Schiphol Group, 2010b) ....................................................................... 25 Figure 13: 17 CR-themes (Schiphol Group, 2010b) ........................................................................................... 26 Figure 14: PDCA-cycle (www.pdcacyclus.nl) ..................................................................................................... 26 Figure 15: Factor matrix .................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 16: The Communicative Believer (left: www.clipart.com/441339, right: www.powerpeoria.com) ...... 36 Figure 17: The Strategic Changer (left: gobeyondmba.nl, right: acorporatedecision.com.au) ......................... 37 Figure 18: The Balanced Profiteer (left: cartoons.com, right: healthinsuranceproviders.com) ....................... 37 Figure 19: The Numerical Collaborator (left: specialneedstoys.com, right: lowerpark.cheshire.org.uk) ......... 38 Figure 20: Implementation steps of CR ............................................................................................................. 51 Figure 21: The BSC (left) (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) and the RBS (right) (van der Woerd, 2004) ....................... 55 Figure 22: Organization of Schiphol .................................................................................................................. 59 Figure 23: The three-pillars of a project ............................................................................................................ 59 Figure 24: Scaling phase .................................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 25: Validation & control tool .................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 26: overview phase 2 .............................................................................................................................. 70 Figure 27: The fictitious flight ............................................................................................................................ 74 Figure 28: Motives for a transfer at Schiphol (Schiphol Group, 2009) .............................................................. 75 Figure 29: Aspects in choosing airport of departure (GfK Custom Research, 2009) ......................................... 76 Figure 30: Plots of the utility per attribute level ............................................................................................... 79 Figure 31: Implementation steps of CR ............................................................................................................. 86 Figure A-32: Goal-tree analysis .......................................................................................................................... 97 Figure A-33: Influence vs. interest matrix ....................................................................................................... 101 Figure A-34: Causal diagram ............................................................................................................................ 102 Figure A-35: System diagram ........................................................................................................................... 103 Figure A-36: Q-sort distribution ...................................................................................................................... 107 Figure A-37: Z-scores factor 1 .......................................................................................................................... 110 Figure A-38: Z-scores factor 2 .......................................................................................................................... 111 Figure A-39: Z-scores factor 3 .......................................................................................................................... 112 Figure A-40: Z-scores factor 4 .......................................................................................................................... 113 Figure A-41: The Sustainable Footprint Framework ....................................................................................... 124 Figure A-42: Framework by Labuschagne and Brent ...................................................................................... 125 Figure A-43: Effect-coding scheme .................................................................................................................. 130 Figure A-44: The .dat-file ................................................................................................................................. 134 Figure A-45: The .mod-file ............................................................................................................................... 134 Figure A-46: Utility function ............................................................................................................................ 134 Figure A-47: Output Biogeme .......................................................................................................................... 135






















xv


Contents PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................ IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ V SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... VII ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. XII LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. XIII LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ XIV 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Problem Statements ...................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Research Goals ...........................................................................................................................................2 1.3 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................................3 1.4 Research Approach .....................................................................................................................................3 1.5 Relevance of the Research .........................................................................................................................6

1.5.1 Social Relevance ..................................................................................................................................6 1.5.2 Scientific Relevance .............................................................................................................................6 1.5.3 Business Relevance ..............................................................................................................................6

2. METHODOLOGIES ....................................................................................................................... 8 3. CONTEXT: SETTING THE SCENE ..................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Aviation Industry ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS) ......................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Schiphol Group ........................................................................................................................................ 12 3.4 SIM ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

PHASE 1 - THEORY, PRACTICE AND PERSPECTIVES ON CR ........................................................................... 14 4. THEORY ON CR ........................................................................................................................ 15

4.1 Why CR: History, Definition and Motives ................................................................................................ 15 4.1.1 A Definition of CR ............................................................................................................................. 16 4.1.2 Motives for CR .................................................................................................................................. 16

4.2 How: Implementing CR in a Firm ............................................................................................................. 18 4.3 What: Benefits and Costs of CR ............................................................................................................... 20

4.3.1 Employee Welfare ............................................................................................................................ 20 4.3.2 Financial Benefits .............................................................................................................................. 20 4.3.3 Reputation and Image ...................................................................................................................... 21 4.3.4 Competitive Advantage .................................................................................................................... 22 4.3.5 Investments ...................................................................................................................................... 23

4.4 Conclusion on the CR Theory................................................................................................................... 23 5. CR IN PRACTICE AT SCHIPHOL ...................................................................................................... 24

5.1 History and Definition of CR at Schiphol ................................................................................................. 24 5.2 Why Schiphol applies CR ......................................................................................................................... 24 5.3 How CR is organized at Schiphol ............................................................................................................. 25 5.4 What: Benefits and Costs of CR at Schiphol ............................................................................................ 26 5.5 Conclusion on CR in Practice at Schiphol................................................................................................. 27

6. DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE ......................................................... 29 7. PERSPECTIVES ON CR AT SCHIPHOL ............................................................................................... 31

7.1 Theory on the Q-methodology ................................................................................................................ 31 7.2 Applying the Q-method to Schiphol ........................................................................................................ 32

7.2.1 Defining the Q-set ............................................................................................................................ 32 7.2.3 Defining the P-set ............................................................................................................................. 32 7.2.3 The Q-sorting Procedure .................................................................................................................. 33

7.3 Analysis of the Q-sorts ............................................................................................................................. 33 7.4 Results of the Q-methodology ................................................................................................................ 35

7.4.1 The Identification of Factors ............................................................................................................. 35 7.4.2 Consensus and Disagreement Statements ....................................................................................... 40 7.4.3 Relations between the Characteristics of Respondents and Factors ............................................... 41

xvi


7.5 Discussion among and between Perspectives ......................................................................................... 44 7.5.1 Discussion between Persons in a Perspective .................................................................................. 44 7.5.2 A Dialogue between Perspectives .................................................................................................... 45

7.6 Criticism and limitations of the Q-methodology ..................................................................................... 47 CONCLUSION PHASE 1 ...................................................................................................................... 49 RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLICATIONS PHASE 1 ...................................................................................... 49 PHASE 2 - A FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS ....................................................................... 53 8. THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS .................................................................................................. 54

8.1 Literature on Decision-making ................................................................................................................ 54 8.1.1 Scorecards ........................................................................................................................................ 54 8.1.2 Investment Tools .............................................................................................................................. 56 8.1.3 Other Frameworks ............................................................................................................................ 57

8.2 Requirements for ‘The Balanced Framework’ ......................................................................................... 57 8.3 Designing ‘The Balanced Framework’ ..................................................................................................... 58

8.3.1 Scaling People, Planet and Profit ...................................................................................................... 59 8.3.2 Weighting People, Planet and Profit ................................................................................................ 63

8.4 Verification and Validation of ‘The Balanced Framework’ ...................................................................... 65 8.5 Implementation of ‘The Balanced Framework’ ....................................................................................... 66

8.5.1 The Road Ahead ................................................................................................................................ 66 8.5.2 Potential Barriers for ‘The Balanced Framework’ ............................................................................ 67

CONCLUSION PHASE 2 ...................................................................................................................... 68 RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLICATIONS PHASE 2 ...................................................................................... 68 PHASE 3 - THE CR REPUTATION AMONG TRANSFER PASSENGERS ................................................................. 71 9. THE CR REPUTATION AND THE TRANSFER PASSENGER ........................................................................ 72

9.1 Literature on Conjoint Analysis ............................................................................................................... 72 9.2 Setting up the Experiment ....................................................................................................................... 74

9.2.1 Defining the Attributes and Attribute Levels ................................................................................... 74 9.2.2 Defining the Choice-set .................................................................................................................... 76 9.2.3 The Survey and the Response-group ................................................................................................ 77

9.3 Results of the Stated-Choice Experiment ................................................................................................ 77 9.3.1 Part Worth Utilities ........................................................................................................................... 78 9.3.2 Willingness to Pay for a CR Reputation ............................................................................................ 79

9.4 Verification and Validation of the Conjoint Analysis ............................................................................... 80 9.5 Discussion on the Results of the Study .................................................................................................... 80

9.5.1 Limitations and Further Research .................................................................................................... 80 9.5.2 Reflection on the CR Reputation Study ............................................................................................ 81

CONCLUSION PHASE 3 ...................................................................................................................... 82 RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLICATIONS PHASE 3 ...................................................................................... 82 10. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLICATIONS ........................................................ 84

10.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 84 10.2 Recommendations & Implications for Schiphol .................................................................................... 85 10.3 Further Research ................................................................................................................................... 86

11. REFLECTION ......................................................................................................................... 88 11.1 Reflection on the Research Phases........................................................................................................ 88 11.2 Reflection on the Process ...................................................................................................................... 90

LITERATURE ................................................................................................................................... 92 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 96 Appendix I: Actor Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 97

Appendix I A: Goal-Tree Schiphol .................................................................................................................. 97 Appendix I B: Actors and their Interest, Influence and Replaceability .......................................................... 98

Appendix II: Causal Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 102 Appendix III: System Diagram .......................................................................................................................... 103 Appendix IV: Q-methodology .......................................................................................................................... 104

Appendix IV A: Q-set .................................................................................................................................... 104

xvii


Appendix IV B: P-set .................................................................................................................................... 106 Appendix IV C: Q-sort Distribution .............................................................................................................. 107 Appendix IV D: Correlation Matrix .............................................................................................................. 108 Appendix IV E: Unrotated Factor Matrix ..................................................................................................... 109 Appendix IV F: Factor scores per Factor ...................................................................................................... 110 Appendix IV G: Mutual Correlations between Factors ................................................................................ 114 Appendix IV H: Consensus vs. Disagreement Statements ........................................................................... 115 Appendix IV I: Overview Phase 1 ................................................................................................................. 116

Appendix V: ‘The Balanced Framework’ .......................................................................................................... 118 Appendix V A: GRI Indicators for Airport Operators ................................................................................... 118 Appendix V B: UN-Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 122 Appendix V C: Sustainable Footprint Methodology .................................................................................... 124 Appendix V D: Schiphol KPIs and Themes ................................................................................................... 127

Appendix VI: Conjoint Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 128 Appendix VI A: Basic Plan 2 ......................................................................................................................... 128 Appendix VI B: Effect-coding ....................................................................................................................... 129 Appendix VI C: Questionnaire for Transfer Passenger ................................................................................ 131 Appendix VI D: Biogeme Files ...................................................................................................................... 134 Appendix VI E: Results of the State-choice Experiment .............................................................................. 136

1

Chapter 1. Introduction

1. Introduction Aviation contributes 5% to the worlds CO2 emissions (Bows, 2009). This makes it a big player in the

worldwide battle to reduce environmental pollutions like CO2 emissions. In combination with the increased

media attention and public awareness on the environment, firms in the aviation sector feel the social

pressure and push to do something about their environmental pollutions.

But there is more than the planet alone, because it is the people who pollute the environment. As result

their health and well-being is affected by the polluted environment. People want to travel more often and

further afield all around the world, an option offered through aviation. Airplanes use more kerosene and

emit more pollution which affects the quality of life for people living on the planet. This influence on the

people’s wellness and health can affect their performance at the firm they are working for. People make the

firm and are thus the driving force. So acting responsibly towards the environment, their employees and the

people, is crucial for firms nowadays. Thereby, the business world does not have to wait for politics, they can

act now.

In order for a firm to take care of the people and the planet for a firm money should be made available. By

making a profit and investing that in the people and planet aspects is an option. But this means that when a

firm has less or no money available, such as in an economic crisis, no investment can be made for the planet

and the people aspects. Investments in these aspects are needed today in order to have an effect in the

future. In the long-term the lack of investment can damage several aspects of the firm, such as its reputation

and competitive advantage. But on the other hand, a firm needs to focus on profit in order to survive. This is

the dilemma firms are facing more often.

People, planet and profit together are Corporate

Responsibility (CR). Balancing people, planet and

profit is thus important for the aviation sector in

order to continuously grow. Besides the airlines

which are actually flying, the airport itself also

needs to deal with this balance. After all, airports

contribute for 5% to the total emissions of the

aviation sector (IPCC, 1999).

1.1 Problem Statements Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS) which is operated by Schiphol Group (SG), from now on named Schiphol,

realizes that by implementing CR in the daily business and operations requires a change in the organization

and its culture is faced with a change that will not be realized overnight and something that will have a major

influence in its future development. This change is complex and takes places in a complex problem area,

whereby Schiphol as the problem owner is wrestling with this CR-based change. Is it really that important

some people will ask, does it affect our operations, what are the benefits of CR, how do we implement it,

should we change our current approach? All these issues are relevant and can be categorized into three

problem statements.

Problem statement 1: Unstructured CR policy A lack of knowledge is the cause of this problem. In response to the expectations of the stakeholders,

Schiphol started with a CR policy. However, essential motives for CR were missing from the policy. This

resulted in ineffective CR performance and a negative reputation for the concept CR and its effects.

Figure 1: Balancing people, planet and profit = CR (Schiphol Group, 2011b)

2


Problem statement 2: No balance between people, planet and profit in decision-making Based on a misunderstanding of the motives for CR, the implementation of the policy was unstructured. This

caused an imbalance in the decision-making process. The profit aspect is still more important than the

people and planet aspects, in contrast to the essence of CR. For the success of CR, a balanced decision with

more awareness on people, planet and profit is required.

Problem statement 3: Blurred view on CR reputation and expectations Due to the lack of awareness on CR in the decision-making process, the internal and external perspectives on

CR are vague. Combined with the absence of a central vision or strategy, external stakeholders are acquiring

a different and inconsistent view on Schiphol and its CR policy. A lack of the right external exposure results in

missed revenues and benefits for Schiphol, and stakeholders underestimate the value of current CR

investments. When it is known what the stakeholders expect, it is easier to understand the meaning of what

you are trying to achieve. Schiphol wants to know what the effects of a CR are, especially on the perceived

reputation among the passengers.

1.2 Research Goals The three indicated problem statements face a knowledge gap and a design gap. This research analyses each

of them by setting up research goals. All goals should contribute to the main goal of this research, which is in

line with the overall mission of Schiphol to become and stay Europe’s preferred airport.

Main Goal: Analyze the CR strategy, organization and decision-making process in order to balance People,

planet and profit at Schiphol to successfully grasp the benefits of CR

Goal 1: Compare scientific CR theory with the practice at Schiphol The lack of structure in the CR policy is a knowledge gap. The goal is to create structure in the fragmented

organization by setting up a clear CR vision and strategy, based upon an extensive literature study. The

scientific theory will be compared to the practice at Schiphol, bringing in the needed knowledge to

successfully implement and apply CR at Schiphol.

Goal 2: Analyze current perspectives on CR within the organization

Organizational change requires support from the organization. Therefore it is needed to identify the current

perspectives on CR within Schiphol. Differences and consensus between issues are relevant input for the CR

policy and strategy. This knowledge also stimulates the support and understanding for the chosen CR policy

in the end.

Goal 3: All employees at all levels in the organization make a conscious decision on CR to balance people,

planet and profit

In order to effectively implement CR in the business processes and activities of Schiphol Group, it is

necessary to create this awareness in decision-making. Currently most employees lack awareness on CR

while making a decision, but traditionally focus on the profit aspect. More balance is required in the

decision-making process, to support the implementation of the CR policy. An assessment of people, planet

and profit is required to increase understanding, valuation and evaluation of CR within the whole

organization.

Goal 4: Determine the value of CR reputation amongst stakeholders Goal is to know what determines this reputation for relevant stakeholders. In this research the focus will be

on the transfer passengers. This group does not play a role in Schiphol’s CR policy, while transfer passengers

are ±45% of the total passengers at Schiphol (Schiphol Group, 2009). Although the group of O-D (origin-

destination) passengers is larger, they have a limited choice for an airport due to monopolies in countries,

3


while the transfer passengers can choose between different airports of transfer. It is important to know how

this group values the CR reputation in the choice for Schiphol and what they are willing to pay for it.

1.3 Research Questions Given the defined problem statements in paragraph 1.1, a knowledge (statement 1 and 3) and design

(statement 2) gap exists. Based upon these problem statements the goals of this research are defined. To

fulfill these goals and fill the knowledge and design gaps, a main research question and multiple sub-

questions are proposed below.

Main Question: What is the current role (influence) of CR at Schiphol, how can this be improved and what are

the potential benefits for the future (in order to become and stay Europe’s preferred airport)?

To answer this main question, several sub-questions are formulated. They are linked to the indicated

problem statements.

Sub-question 1a: What are the differences and similarities between literature on CR and the practice at

Schiphol?

1b: What are the perspectives on CR in the organization Schiphol?

Sub-question 2: Which framework is suitable to help balance the people, planet and profit in the decision-

making process?

Sub-question 3: What is Schiphol’s CR reputation among transfer passengers and what are they willing to

pay for it?

1.4 Research Approach The working hypothesis for this research is thus that CR plays a significant role in the growth strategy of

Schiphol. Schiphol wants to become and stay Europe’s preferred airport and this research will investigate

how crucial the role of CR is in relation to this goal. To structure the research, the report is divided into three

phases which correspond to the research questions. To answer each sub-question, the most suitable

methodology is applied to the individual question. The more general approach is presented here, while in

the next chapter more detailed information on each methodology is presented.

The first phase answers sub-question 1a and 1b. In order to define the differences and similarities between

the scientific theory and practice at Schiphol, each of them should be discussed extensively. Therefore, first

an overview of the CR-theory is given through an extensive literature review (Chapter 4). Then, an overview

of CR in the practice at Schiphol is formulated by studying practical literature and having interviews with

both people related and unrelated to CR to derive at a complete overview (Chapter 5). Both overviews of CR

theory and practice are structured by asking the questions why, how and what based on the Golden Circle

model (Sinek, 2009). This enables a thorough and complete overview of the differences and similarities on

each of the why, how and what (in that order) (Chapter 6). This comparison together with the information

out of the interviews feeds two assumptions: the presence of different motives for CR in the practice at

Schiphol and the existence of a difference between the CR theory Schiphol has and the execution in practice.

To check these assumptions and answer sub-question 1b, Q-methodology is applied to Schiphol (Chapter 7).

This method is the most suitable to reveal perspectives on CR at Schiphol. Together with the theory-practice

comparison, this provides valuable knowledge on the current role and influence of CR at Schiphol.

The second phase focuses on the decision-making process at Schiphol. Schiphol faces problems with this

since the current decision-making process is not able to balance people, planet and profit enough and make

4


a general valuation on projects out of all levels in the organization. Schiphol is right that these are important

problems that need to be solved to improve the implementation of the CR policy. Therefore, chapter 8

analyses the current process and the literature on decision-making tools to design a new framework.

Interviews and an institutional analysis are needed to identify the current problems and drawbacks and to

come up with a list of requirements for the new framework. Knowledge on multi-criteria decision analysis is

needed to design the framework itself and make sure it incorporates the lessons learned from the theory.

The third phase relates to sub-question 3 and thus will focus on the CR reputation among transfer

passengers (Chapter 9). To investigate the influence of CR, a stated-choice experiment will be conducted

among the transfer passengers to let them choose between different transfer-airports which vary in

characteristics as transfer time, ticket price, airport quality and CR reputation. This method is an application

of conjoint analysis, which furthermore is able to define a ranking and willingness to pay for these

characteristics.

To assist the reader, the reading guide in Figure 2 below shows how the report should be read. The

introduction, methodologies and context define the scope of the whole research. Then phase 1 is started by

elaborating the theory and practice, which have differences and similarities. Thereafter the differences in

perspectives on CR are revealed at Schiphol. From these perspectives, the two important statements are

worked out in further detail in phase 2 and 3. The report ends with a conclusion on the whole research and

recommendations and implications for Schiphol.

An overview and structure of the research is presented in Figure 3. The three phases have different colors

and link the problem statements to corresponding research questions which are analyzed by suitable

research methods in the end. More information on these methods can be found in the Chapter 2 and in the

specific chapters were the methods are applied.

Figure 2: Reading guide for this thesis

5


Figure 3: Research overview

6


1.5 Relevance of the Research This paragraph will subsequently show the relevance of this research from a social, scientific and business

perspective.

1.5.1 Social Relevance The stated problems are broader than Schiphol alone. The position of Schiphol as mainport in the Dutch

economy and society ensures Schiphol as an important player. Society as an external stakeholder expects

that Schiphol is acting responsible in all its activities. An improvement of indicated problem statements will

result in benefits for society. When the internal CR policy is improved, Schiphol will in the end create value

together with and for all stakeholders. Society will benefit through more balanced investments and projects

that take into account people, planet and profit. This will result in an increased quality of life. Making this

more balanced decision today is relevant for the future society, to not limit next generations in their power

to fulfill their own needs (Brundtland, 1987). But also the continuation and growth of Schiphol is relevant,

since it brings in jobs and economic welfare to society.

The insights in the willingness to pay can also have positive effects on society by a more tailored approach of

airports to serve the preferences of the passenger. A positive wtp for a high CR reputation will be an

incentive for airport operators to increase their CR reputation. Society and environment (people and planet)

will be more balanced with the profit and thus benefit more from this approach.

1.5.2 Scientific Relevance The problem statements on CR at Schiphol provide an interesting opportunity to do research on the

combination of internal CR management and literature from a scientific point of view. This research is

performed from the perspective to bring science to the practice, which makes the interest of Schiphol

leading above that Schiphol is a case study. This is unique, since normally case studies bring the practice to

science. Case studies are mostly aimed at airlines but airports are absent (ELFAA, 2009; Lynes & Andrachuk,

2008; Tsai & Hsu, 2008). Since Schiphol is not just an airport, but an Airport City and a big hub in Europe, this

research adds a unique case study to existing literature. The existing theory on CR can be applied to

Schiphol, which will verify (or not) this theory in practice. This unique opportunity given by Schiphol provides

insight in the CR policy and strategy of an airport in a very interesting but complex environment. This might

again result in new knowledge gaps and create opportunities for further research. Also in the field of Q-

methodology, this research provides the Q-literature with a new case-study that gives insight into the CR

approach within a company. This is not done before, so it adds new knowledge and insights to this field.

Furthermore, this research contributes to science by the design of a new framework on the decision-making

process. The new framework builds further on existing frameworks, of which the positive points are

combined with practical experiences within Schiphol. This leads to a unique and new framework in the field

of process-management, organizational change and decision-making.

The conjoint analysis is also a practical application of the theoretical method. This research adds to the

science in this field by presenting the weight of the CR reputation in relation to ticket price, transfer time and

airport quality. This gives insight in determining factors in the airport-choice by transfer passengers. The wtp

is never calculated before in such an experiment as done in this research, based on a fictitious flight.

1.5.3 Business Relevance CR is a very actual topic for Schiphol and this research analyzes the main problems Schiphol faces. The

results are therefore very relevant and valuable for Schiphol. It provides Schiphol with a comparison of their

practice with scientific theory, which results in recommendations to improve their policy and organization on

CR in order to optimize the profits and benefits of CR by minimizing the nuisance and costs. Furthermore,

7


the lessons learned from this research are useful for other airfields operated by Schiphol Group. The lessons

learned can improve the CR policy these other locations as well so that they do not need to re-invent the

wheel again.

The Q-methodology gives a unique insight in the internal organization by revealing the perspectives on CR.

Conducting the research itself made the employees more aware on the urgency of CR, while the results

enhance discussion and fields of improvement. It leads to the development of a decision-making framework

to stimulate awareness on CR and realize balanced decisions. Besides, this framework is broadly

generalizable and can thus be applied to other firms, sectors or industries. For example other airport

operator firms like Fraport (Frankfurt) or Swedavia (Swedish airports), a transport firm such as the operator

of the London Metro (Transport for London) or an oil company like Royal Dutch Shell might all be interested

in this framework since they might face the same CR-related problems. All these different firms can apply

this framework to assist their decision-making process in taking more balanced decisions between people,

planet and profit.

Finally, knowledge on the willingness to pay for a CR reputation among transfer passengers is valuable

information for Schiphol. If the transfer passenger is wtp for an excellent CR reputation, Schiphol should

anticipate on this and try to achieve this excellent CR reputation to achieve this wtp. This can be a

distinguishing element in the European competition between airports and contributes to the realization of

Schiphol’s goal, which is to become and stay Europe’s preferred airport.

8


2. Methodologies This chapter summarizes all methodologies that are used in this research. According to Figure 2, there are six

methodologies: literature review, interviews, Q-methodology, institutional analysis, multi-criteria decision

analysis (MCDA) and conjoint analysis. Although some methodologies are used specifically to answer an

individual sub-question (MCDA, conjoint analysis and Q-methodology) while others (literature review,

interviews) have overlap between the phases, the reasons why they are used are in line with the overall

storyline of the thesis. Each method is the most suitable to answer the corresponding sub-question, which

again all together answer the main question. Therefore the use of the specific and suitable research methods

in the different phases together, is more than the sum of the parts. The foundation for this research is in the

interest of Schiphol, so the methodologies are used to provide an answer to the problems at Schiphol and

not the other way around. Schiphol is therefore not used as case-study for to apply a methodology.

Literature review is the foundation for all methodologies, but is especially used to answer sub-question 1a

(phase 1) of this thesis. The theory on CR is extensively discussed by means of scientific literature to be able

to find out the why, how and what questions of CR. Besides that, the other methodologies (MCDA, conjoint

analysis and Q-methodology) are not applied before the literature on the used methodology is studied

extensively.

Interviews are an important methodology in this research. In the early stages of this research, interviews

provided the necessary knowledge about the CR in the practice of Schiphol. By asking open questions and

continuing to ask in more detail about interesting CR facts and the experiences of the interviewee with CR,

the interview is a very suitable method. The interview-technique is also used to obtain statements for the Q-

methodology, which therefore is a good representation of the opinions among the employees. In identifying

the requirements for the design of the new framework in answering sub-question 2 (phase 2), the interview

revealed the real barriers and experience of the current decision-making process at Schiphol. After that, the

design was also tested, verified and validated by the use of interviews to gather experiences and lessons

learned to further improve the framework.

Q-methodology gives insight into the perspectives of individuals to study their subjectivity on a certain issue

(Watts & Stenner, 2005). This makes this methodology extremely applicable and suitable in identifying the

perspectives among Schiphol employees on CR (sub-question 1b). This is needed to reveal the causes of the

current problems Schiphol faces relating to the success of its CR policy and strategy. Q-methodology was

invented in 1935 by British physicist-psychologist William Stephenson. It evolved from factor-analytic theory

and is therefore most often associated with quantitative analysis. But throughout the years, it was used

more to reveal a person’s personal experience and frame of reference on an issue by ranking statements

from most disagree until most agree. This ranking is based upon a quasi-normal distribution, called Q-sorts

and is used to encourage the participants to give careful consideration to the ranking they wish to achieve,

bringing out true feelings in response (=subjectivity). These Q-sorts facilitate the computation of a

correlation matrix to identify correlated Q-sorts. Factor analysis was performed on this matrix, by using the

centroid method. Each factor in this matrix duly represents a different statement configuration, which is

nonetheless shared and characterized by the employees who load onto that factor. To approximate simple

structure the factors are rotated by using varimax rotation, which maximizes the sum of variances of the

squared loadings per person. In the final set of 4 factors one factor consists of the Q-sorts of the respondents

that significantly and solely load on a factor and can therefore be considered as representative for the

thought pattern present in the factor on which they load (Kroesen & Bröer, 2009). By conducting these

steps, the Q-methodology revealed the existence of four different perspectives regarding CR at Schiphol

among Schiphol employees.

9

Chapter 2. Methodologies

Institutional analysis is applied in phase 2 of this research to identify the current problems and drawbacks of

the current decision-making process and to come up with a list of requirements for the new framework (sub-

question 2). An overview on the organization is needed to increase the chance of successful implementation

of the new framework. An institutional analysis is a very suitable method to provide this information.

Since decisions in this process at Schiphol are made on multiple criteria, multi-criteria decision analysis

(MCDA) is suitable and applicable to suitable to this situation. Knowledge on MCDA is therefore needed to

design the framework itself and make sure it incorporates the lessons learned from the theory. In MCDA it is

assumed that the way decisions are taken is fully prescribed. This research rejects this assumption, since it is

not the goal of this phase to fully prescribe what to do in every situation under all circumstances. This will

decrease the support for the framework in the organization and cause resistance in using it. Therefore the

focus is more on describing the use of the framework with potential adjustments that can be made based on

lessons learned and experiences of using the framework. The implications for Schiphol prescribe that it is

recommended to implement and use the framework. Based on these methodologies and together with a

literature study on other scorecards and investment tools, the requirements for the design of a new

framework are set. The design of ‘The Balanced Framework’ incorporates MCDA with criteria that now

balance people, planet and profit.

Given the importance of a CR reputation on the business performance (Chapter 5) and the negative affection

on the influence of a CR reputation in the airport choice, it is interesting to investigate the impact of the CR

reputation in the choice for an airport by transfer passengers and the willingness to pay for it (sub-question

3 in phase 3). Stated-choice models are a specific group within conjoint analysis and are a suitable method in

this case to investigate this relation since it is a methodology in which respondents (the transfer passenger)

value different alternatives or profiles by making implicit trade-offs, from which their preferences are

obtained. The preferences are modeled by utility functions, which are based upon the multinomial logit

model (MNL). MNL is simple in use and estimation and has a robust prediction accuracy on the underlying

assumptions (the IID of profiles in the choice-set). Therefore it is preferred above rating-based models which

use regression analysis. With the utility functions the part worth utility of the CR reputation can be defined.

By giving a monetary value to this utility, the willingness to pay for a CR reputation can be defined for this

hypothetical experiment.

Another method that is used is the Golden Circle model by Sinek. Although this is not a scientific tool, it is a

very practical and helpful model to structure and analyze problems. Starting with why is essential, you have

to know why you are doing something before you can inspire people and it can be a success (Sinek, 2009).

This model is applicable to CR; it is about inspiration, feeling and about doing something good. When you

know why CR is important, the ‘how’ will be easier to realize since people are inspired and know the reasons

behind the concept. They are more willing to accept organizational change in a firm, like in culture, actions

and way of thinking. When the why and how are known, people are able to understand the what (e.g. the

benefits and costs of CR) better. The Golden Circle model is used in chapters 4 and 5 to structure the

extensive literature and practical information.

More detailed information about the described methodologies can be found in the chapter in which they are

used, see Figure 2. There is also a detailed description of how the method is applied to the Schiphol situation

and be of use for this research.

10


3. Context: Setting the Scene This chapter defines the context of the research by zooming in from a large to small focus. It is important to

know the context to get an understanding of the complexity and environment of the problem area. The

general aviation industry is discussed first (paragraph 3.1) after which Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

(paragraph 3.2) and its operator and problem owner Schiphol Group (paragraph 3.3) are defined. Lastly, the

SIM is introduced (paragraph 3.4) as the specific department where this research was acquired and

performed. A complete overview of all actors and an analysis on their interest, influence and replaceability is

given in Appendix I. The results of this analysis are used to define the scope in an early phase of the research,

while in a later phase it was valuable input for setting up recommendations and implications. Actors with the

same interest most likely have a higher level of acceptance than opponents.

3.1 Aviation Industry Dynamic, complex and a multi-actor setting are terms associated with the aviation industry. Airlines are

transporting passengers (annually 2.2 billion (ATAG, 2008)) from origin to destination, the airports are

facilitators. There are many factors (both internal and external) influencing this way of travelling during the

last decade. Such as new airline alliances, the rise of low cost carriers, new aviation technology, changing oil

prices, institutional development, terrorist threats and stricter environmental regulations (Wijnen, Walker, &

Kwakkel, 2008).

But aviation also has a strong influence on the world. The industry offers 32 million jobs globally, of which

5.5 million are directly related to aviation (ATAG, 2008). The industry accounts for 7.5% of the world’s GDP,

in Europe this percentage is 3.1% (AEA, 2010). Not only in economic terms the impact of aviation is big, it

also accounts for 5% of the worldwide CO2 emissions (Baumert, Herzog, & Pershing, 2005).

Air travel is one of the fastest growing, most dynamic and volatile sectors in tourism(Lynes & Dredge, 2006).

Lynes also states that tourists are using air travel more frequently and the average length of destination has

almost doubled over the last two decades. Not only in tourism, but in general the growth in aviation trips is

much larger than by car and other transport modes (Scott, Peeters, & Gossling, 2010).

This growth is stimulated by the hub and spoke structure and the rise of the low-cost airlines. Hub and spoke

means that there is a central intercontinental airport (the hub), which is connected to smaller continental

airports (the spokes). This makes it possible to transfer more passengers in more efficient processes. The rise

of low-cost airlines like Easy Jet and Ryan Air has had big influence on the industry, creating more

competition on continental flights. Less service, no food included and less time spent at the gate resulted in

lower cost for the airline. Tickets for passengers became cheaper, which made it possible for more people to

fly. Together with the rising amount of people in the middle class of the population, these two trends are

causing passengers to fly more often and attract new passengers to flying.

After a small dip in 2008-2009 caused by the financial crisis, passenger numbers are rising again worldwide

with 6% per year (ACI, 2010). This results in more air traffic movements (ATMs), a growth of 1.1% to 74

million in total (ACI, 2010). The negative side of all these developments is the big impact on the

environment. For example: due to more and longer ATMs, there is more CO2 emissions because more

people (passengers and employees) are travelling to airports, more decibels produced, etc. On the other

hand, there are many innovations in the aviation industry to reduce these negative impacts. This resulted in

a reduction of 1.7% (11 million tons CO2) in 2010 compared to 2009 due to efficiencies (fuel, engine,

materials)(Scott, et al., 2010). But the total emissions in 2010 increased by 3.5% to 649 million tons CO2,

because the emissions of the total industry were larger (5.2% growth) (IATA, 2011b).

11

Chapter 3. Context: Setting the Scene

This discrepancy and the increasing share of aviation emissions in total emissions worldwide puts this issue

high on the political agendas. In relation to the big contribution to the economy, this is an interesting issue

for policy makers, airlines, airports and passengers around the world.

3.2 Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS) Schiphol is the largest international airport in the Netherlands, nearby Amsterdam. Connecting the

Netherlands to 313 destinations, carried out by 106 airlines. In 2011, the total passenger volume grew by

10.2% (compared to 2010) to over 49.8 million passengers (Schiphol Group, 2012a). With a market share of

10.6% in Europe, Schiphol is the fourth-largest airport in passenger numbers. Only London Heathrow, Paris

Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt are ahead. Regarding cargo transport AAS ranks third in Europe with a

volume of 1.5 million tons and a market share of 13.9%. In total, passengers and cargo, Schiphol is taking

care of 420245 ATMs per year arriving on or departing from one of the six operational runways. In contrast

to the aviation sector in general, this amount is declining. This is caused by the deployment of larger aircrafts

by airlines, the decommission of smaller airlines (e.g. Fokker 50 by KLM) and an increased occupancy rate of

the airplane (77% on average)(IATA, 2011a).

The passengers can be divided in O-D (origin or destination is Amsterdam) and transfer, the ratio is about

58% O&D to 42% transfer passengers at hub airport Schiphol (Schiphol Group, 2011a). This high ratio of

transfer passengers is important for Schiphol and unique in Europe, caused by the relatively small O&D

market in the Netherlands and amount of destinations compared to the other competitors in Europe.

Another unique characteristic of Schiphol is the one-terminal concept: all passengers arrive and depart from

one terminal, which is divided in Schengen (European flights), non-Schengen and low-cost airlines.

Schiphol is the home base of KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines) and together with Paris Charles de Gaulle an

important international hub for the Sky Team alliance. It links the Netherlands with the big economic centers

in the world via a global aviation network, making the Netherlands a highly attractive international business

location. The businesses located at Schiphol itself as well as those in the surrounding area make the

mainport the most important source of employment in the Randstad conurbation. AAS accounts for nearly

2% of the GDP in the Netherlands. This figure is expected to rise up to 2.8% in 2015 (ACI, 2010).

Furthermore, the careful integration of the airport into and with the surrounding area plays an important

role in the development of mainport Schiphol. Due to the complex location of AAS, nearby Amsterdam in the

Figure 4: Aerial view on Schiphol (Picture from: www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl)

12


high-density area the Randstad, there are many residents around Schiphol. They experience nuisance caused

by Schiphol like noise, traffic and emissions. Together with environmental organizations, they protested

against the growth of Schiphol. Negotiations at the table of Alders, a consultation with stakeholders,

resulted in 2008 in a decision that there will be a maximum of 580 thousand ATMs in the Netherlands, 510

thousand on Schiphol and 70 thousand on Lelystad and Eindhoven (Alders, 2008).

3.3 Schiphol Group The management of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is in the hands of Schiphol Group, they operate and own of

the airport. In this report Schiphol will be used as a synonym

and the using term for Schiphol Group. Besides AAS, Schiphol

Group owns and operates Rotterdam-The Hague Airport and

Lelystad Airport. They have a 51% share in Eindhoven Airport

and outside the Netherlands they run international operations

at Terminal 4 of John F. Kennedy Airport in New York and at

Brisbane Airport in Australia. Totally, Schiphol Group employs

over 2000 people (Schiphol Group, 2012a).

The mission of Schiphol Group for Schiphol is to connect the

Netherlands with major cities and important economical

countries across the world. Creating sustainable value for

stakeholders by developing Airport Cities and positioning AAS as

Europe’s preferred airport is in line with that mission. Schiphol

Group is a profitable, independent and commercial enterprise.

According to the last annual report over 2011, the revenue,

operating result and investments are respectively 1278, 304

and 263 million euro (Schiphol Group, 2012a). Schiphol Group

has four shareholders:

Dutch government 69.77%

Municipality of Amsterdam 20.03%

Municipality of Rotterdam 2.20%

Aeroports de Paris 8.0%

The Airport City concept makes AAS more than an airport. It is a small, safe and sustainable city with shops,

hotels, restaurants, business centers and entertainment. An efficient multi-modal hub that combines air, rail

and road transport to give visitors a unique 24/7 experience. This concept is applied successfully at AAS and

key in the way to become Europe’s preferred airport.

It results in four business areas: Aviation, Consumers, Real Estate and Alliances & Participations. The core of

this concept is that Real Estate and Consumers are having a large share in the operating result (72%) while

only having a share of 40% in revenue (Schiphol Group, 2012a). A total overview per business area is

presented by Figure 6. So the Airport City concept makes it possible to have a profitable business, whereby

the areas Real Estate and Consumers are needed in order to operate and invest in Aviation (which is still the

main reason of being in business).

Figure 5: Strategy for AAS (Schiphol Group, 2010b)

13

Chapter 3. Context: Setting the Scene

Figure 6: Key financial figures (Schiphol Group, 2012a)

These business areas are built on the pillars socio-economic function and entrepreneurial management,

which is essential in fulfilling the goal of becoming Europe’s preferred airport. Schiphol describes this goal by

five key values: being hospitable, efficient, reliable, inspiring and sustainable (see Figure 5).

3.4 SIM This research is conducted at the ‘Samenwerking Innovatieve Mainport’ (SIM). SIM is an initiative of a

number of parties from the aviation sector and knowledge institutions aimed at positioning Schiphol as an

innovative European mainport. SIM is a partnership between Schiphol Group, KLM, TU Delft (Delft University

of Technology), TNO (Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research) and the NLR (National

Aerospace Laboratory)(SIM, 2011). Combining the knowledge and experiences of the aviation sector and the

various knowledge institutions gives the SIM the power to develop and implement concrete innovations. The

advantage of this method of working is that insights and innovations can be applied in practice directly by

Schiphol and KLM.

The first proposal for this research came from the TU Delft as an idea for further research by dr. Maarten

Kroesen, who is also the first supervisor of this thesis. Schiphol picked up the idea and finalized the research

proposal afterwards they assigned the research to the author. The innovations in this report will provide

Schiphol, the problem owner and client of this research, with scientific knowledge and a sustainable path to

become Europe’s preferred airport with CR in the organization.

Figure 7: SIM-Logo (SIM, 2011)

14


Phase 1 - Theory, Practice and

Perspectives on CR

The first phase of this research will focus on the first problem statement: an unstructured CR policy. This is

the main problem since the policy of an organization is closely related to its performance and operation.

Therefore this is also the starting point of this research whereby the first goal is to compare scientific CR

theory with the practice at Schiphol. An extensive literature study on the CR theory and interviews in

practice are conducted to find out these differences and similarities. Each will be analyzed by asking the

questions (why, how, what) in this specific order based on the Golden Circle model by Sinek. This

comparison implies that different perspectives on CR are present within Schiphol which leads to the second

goal of this phase: the perspectives on CR are analyzed and revealed with the Q-methodology. This makes

phase 1 a solid foundation to start the analysis.

"The time is always right to do what is right."

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929 – 1968), American activist

15

Phase 1 - Chapter 4. Theory on CR

4. Theory on CR This first chapter of phase 1 gives an overview of the scientific literature on CR to understand why CR is

important for firms in general and Schiphol in specific. Therefore an overview of CR throughout history,

definitions of CR and a list of motives for CR are presented in paragraph 4.1. If the motives for CR are clear,

there are different ways of how to apply and implement CR in an organization (paragraph 4.2). Next, the

what becomes relevant which concerns the benefits and costs of CR (paragraph 4.3). The theory on CR is

required knowledge for this research as a whole and input for the comparison with the practice at Schiphol.

4.1 Why CR: History, Definition and Motives The concept of CR was first found in literature around 1950. Literature developed considerably in the 1960s,

began to proliferate in the early 1970s, increased in alternative emphases as corporate social responsiveness

and performance in the late 1970s, became more empirical in the 1980s and transitioned significantly to

alternative themes such as stakeholder theory, business ethics theory, CSP, and corporate citizenship in the

1990s (Carroll, 1999).

The increased literature on CR encountered many synonyms and definitions. Terms as corporate social

responsibility, sustainability, sustainable development, corporate citizenship, social performance and

business ethics are different names but have the same meaning. An analysis of FTSE 100 (=a share index on

the London stock exchange) corporate reports, shows that the UK’s major quoted companies are

increasingly focused on social responsibility in their activities during 2010 (Black Sun Plc, 2011). The attitude

on CR moved from a non-essential business element and a ‘nice to do’ towards an essential part in doing

business. One headline of this report by Black Sun was that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been

overtaken by Corporate Responsibility (CR), with just 9% of companies using CSR, compared with 53% using

CR. Social in CSR refers to the people aspect, but CR is broader than that. It is about the balance between

people, planet and profit, so CR is a more general term. Leading companies are increasingly “demonstrating

linkages between the company strategy, governance and financial performance, and the social,

environmental and economic context.” So as Netterstrom says: “It is more a difference in communication

then in substance” (Netterstrom, 2009). This definition is in line with the practice at Schiphol, which also

uses the term CR. Therefore, CR will be the using term in this research and all references in literature that

use the term CSR are converted to CR in this report.

Figure 9: The Golden Circle (Sinek, 2009) Figure 8: Phase 1: why, how, what

16


4.1.1 A Definition of CR Now that it is clear that CR is the right terminology, a definition of CR is needed. Dahlsrud analyzed many

definitions on CR and defined five key CR words: voluntariness, stakeholder, social, environmental and

economic (Dahlsrud, 2008). Ranking all definitions on the containment of those key CR words and on

reference count, gives a good overview on the definition of CR throughout literature.

A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis (Commission of the European Communities, 2003).

Business decision-making linked to ethical values, compliance with legal requirements and respect for people, communities and the environment (Business for Social Responsibility, 2000).

The commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life (World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 1999).

Companies with a CR strategy integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with their stakeholders and demonstrate openly their triple P performance (van Marrewijk, 2003).

These top-ranked definitions determine the scope on CR for this research and all include the keywords of

Dahlsrud. Based on these definitions, this research defines CR as:

Integrating a balance between people, planet and profit fully in a company’s strategy and operations based

on intrinsic motivation in order to create value for its stakeholders and itself today and in the future.

An important aspect in this definition is the full integration of the business strategy with a CR strategy. The

strategy is the core of the CR performance in an organization. To be recognized by employees, embedded in

the business culture and as an anchoring point for the top-management to show the importance of the

concept. Later on, the ‘how’ paragraph will elaborate more on this integration.

4.1.2 Motives for CR Although the literature on CR started from 1950, it lasted till the end of the 1990s before the public

awareness on CR increased. The Kyoto-protocol in 1997 drew attention of the media, people and policy

makers all over the world. This awareness, stimulated by globalization and technological innovations, on

climate change resulted in more global attention on CR (Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006). The idea of CR became

almost universally sanctioned and promoted by all constituents in society from governments and

corporations to nongovernmental organizations and individual consumers (Lee, 2007). But why would a firm

adopt CR in their business culture? There are several reasons, which can be categorized into altruism,

coerced egoism and strategic use (Abagail McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006).

Altruism describes the case when firms sincerely want to be socially responsible, without regard to how such

activities affect the performance of the firm. This can be caused by the personal esteem or eviction of a

CEO/leader. When the CEO personally is convinced CR is needed, he/she will apply that in his leadership and

the strategy of the firm. Some examples are former TNT CEO Peter Bakker was a big proponent of CR and

implemented his vision also in that of TNT’s (Balch, 2011). Or as Niall Fitzerald, Former CEO of Unilever

states: "Corporate social responsibility is a hard-edged business decision. Not because it is a nice thing to do

or because people are forcing us to do it... because it is good for our business". Another inspiring quote

comes from William Ford Jr., Chairman of Ford Motor Co: "A good company delivers excellent products and

services, and a great company does all that and strives to make the world a better place." A second cause of

17


altruism is when good corporate citizenship (being a good citizen/firm that does something good/trying to

make the world a better place) is in the business culture of the firm.

Coerced egoism occurs when firms act in a socially responsible manner only when they are compelled by

regulation or stakeholder pressure to do so. Companies are increasingly being obliged by a growing number

of stakeholders to play a positive role in society as corporate citizens (Warhurst, 2005). Firms are being

pressured by internal and external actors to engage in CR actions to meet rapidly changing expectations

about business and its social responsibilities (Aguilera, 2007; Kleindorfer, 2005; Warhurst, 2005). The

government can set laws and regulations, to which the firm has to comply (Lynes & Dredge, 2006). Also

governmental regulations are increasingly mandating social responsibility reporting. This puts a high

pressure on companies to report on CR because if they don’t, they are held accountable by external

stakeholders resulting in negative media attention and large financial risks. To prevent this, firms show good

behavior by complying with laws and regulations, with the desire to delay or avoid regulatory action in the

future. But also the increasing power of media and activist groups are a motive for companies to engage in

CR (Orlitzky, 2003; Porter & Kramer, 2006).

Ranking companies on CR performance gets

the attention of the media, making CR an

inescapable priority in business.

The strategic use of CR is defined as instances

where there are clear benefits to the firm for

engaging in CR. First, there are financial

benefits that can be obtained. This can be less

energy use due to more awareness (shutting

down computers and lights) or eco-

efficiencies due to green investments as LED-

lamps (Lynes & Andrachuk, 2008; van

Marrewijk, 2003). Both reduce costs and

increase efficiency by cutting resource use

and waste generation. This links to the second

motive: CR gains a competitive advantage.

They think that applying CR reduces costs and

gets financial benefits on the long-term

providing continuity. Customers require firms

to be corporate responsible, by doing that

(earlier and better than others), customers

get satisfied and come again. CR creates value

for a firms stakeholders by fulfilling their demands (ELFAA, 2009; Abagail McWilliams, et al., 2006). Another

motive that gains competitive advantage is that CR encourages employee productivity through improved

corporate culture and employee pride. CR activities comprise a legitimate, compelling, and increasingly

important way to attract and retain good employees (Bhattacharya, 2008). Influencing the image perception

is also part of strategic CR. Firms apply CR to get or increase its reputation, but also to prevent a negative

reputation of not applying CR. Lately, there has been a shift in thinking; ; from costly philanthropic or image-

enhancing to profit making business opportunity (Mangan, 2007).

The CR concept is an essential part of business language and practice, because it is in line with what the

public expects of the business community today (Carroll, 1999). Carroll proposes a pyramid model for CR,

see Figure 10. The economic responsibilities are the foundation on which legal, ethical and philanthropic

Figure 10: The pyramid of CR (Carroll, 1991)

18


responsibilities rest. Multinationals recognize the strategic impact of climate change and start to invest in

firm specific advantages. To distinguish from other competitors, to have a global impact that is close to the

core business and to be a pioneer on the new emerged ‘green’ market (Kolk & Pinkse, 2008). So the question

for companies has become not whether to commit to a strong environmental, health and safety record, but

how to do so in the most cost-effective manner (Kleindorfer, 2005). In the end it is still business. This is

confirmed by research showing that self-interest, rather than altruism ,is the working assumption of most

firms participating in CR (Husted, 2003).

These motives are in line with the Virtue Matrix

proposed by Martin. Figure 11 shows the four

quadrants of the matrix, representing different

motives for CR. On the bottom-right the motive is

compliance, which corresponds with coerced

egoism. Bottom-left is free choice to join CR, what

is in line with altruism. Top-left is the strategic use

of CR, by activities and behavior that both benefits

society and shareholders. Martin distinguishes

also a structural frontier, which represents actions

that benefit society but not shareholders. The

strategic and structural behavior is balancing and

thus influencing the motive for firms on CR,

therefore firms should be aware of these relations

in taking their decisions.

4.2 How: Implementing CR in a Firm Now that it is clear from a theoretical perspective why firms should adopt CR in their strategy and

operations, many firms are wrestling with the question how to do that. To benefit from CR in the future, the

foundation built by the firm today is determinant and important. And since it is a relatively new concept in

most firms, resistance within the organization can occur. The following issues provide theory on how to

implement CR in an organization by minimizing resistance and maximizing the benefits of the CR concept.

Strong and inspirational leadership from the top is an important first step which is needed to successful

implement CR at a firm (Lynes & Dredge, 2006). He states that: “Environmental champions can play a huge

role in implementing CR in an organization by creating a strong internal environmental culture”. “They

should create a business culture that breaths CR, with employees as enactors and the firm as an enabler”

(Bhattacharya, 2008). Therefore, the management and board of a firm should have full agreement and

commitment to CR in all their actions. This will provide inspiration to stakeholders both internally and

externally.

This agreement should be supported by a CR strategy, which meets the following conditions:

1. Integrated/interwoven with the business strategy (Orlitzky, 2003; Warhurst, 2005). This is needed to

avoid that CR is perceived by employees as an extra effort, which affects the attitude and performance

of employees. It also shows that CR is important for the firm today and on the long-term.

2. Supported by clear goals (Hart & Ahuja, 1996). This will make it easy to understand and work with for

employees. Goal setting also measures the progress and performance.

Figure 11: Virtue Matrix (Martin, 2002)

19


3. Applicable and applied to all levels of the organization (ELFAA, 2009). This will create consistency in the

organization. But there should be space for custom-made policy and strategy to serve different

departments in the organization to raise efficiency.

4. Promote and create organizational learning. The inspiration and commitment from the top stimulates

activities throughout the whole organization. Bottom-up ideas and lessons learned will flow back to the

top, providing input for the strategy and policy and thus creating a self-sustaining and self-

strengthening loop (Zadek, 2004).

5. Support policy and strategy by incentives such as: inclusion of CR targets in salary of managers or a CR

fund to support CR initiatives.

CR is strategic when it yields substantial business-related benefits to the firm, in particular by supporting

core business activities and thus contributing to the firm’s effectiveness in accomplishing its mission (Burke

& Logsdon, 1996). So when the CR strategy is interwoven with the business strategy, all business activities

will be immerged with CR. This means that these activities should be:

Cost effective and have return on investment (Husted, 2003; Kleindorfer, 2005). This profit aspect is still

the foundation for firms, continuity of business is based on profit and having a return on investments.

Centrality; make sure CR activities are closely related to the core competencies of the firm. This increases

efficiency and creates the shared value for both the firm and society (Burke & Logsdon, 1996; Husted,

2003; Porter & Kramer, 2006).

Report and monitor progress activities increases the visibility and progress of CR (Aguilera, 2007). Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs) should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, Time-bound)

and integrated with a Management, Control and Reporting System (MCRS). The Global Reporting

Initiative develops the sustainability reporting assessment for companies, the GRI Reporting Framework,

which consists of reporting principles, reporting guidance and standard disclosures on CR (ELFAA, 2009).

Balance people, planet and profit in all activities, operations and investments (van der Woerd, 2004). Be

aware of this balance in decision throughout the whole organization. Thereby a balance does not say that

people, planet and profit are equally important (=33.3%), but it is all about a balanced distribution.

Both the conditions for the strategy and activities are aimed at the internal affairs of a firm. For a reason,

because a firm first has to get its own house in order (Warhurst, 2005). Afterwards the firm can advantage to

external communicate about their CR activities and accomplishment. But literature is not uniform on this

issue. Others state that a firm should do external communication right from the beginning (Bhattacharya,

2008; ELFAA, 2009). The management of stakeholders, both internal and external, is very important for a

firm. Pressure from external stakeholders was one of the motives of why firms are participating in CR.

Informing them from the beginning shows interest in their existence and interests. Also they can have

valuable information on how to implement CR and they can accelerate or delay this process, see Appendix I.

So the management of actors requires a two-sided way of communication, which should be open, complete

and effective, to have benefits for both parties.

The last thing to mention about how firms have to deal with CR is the sectorial approach. Multiple firms in

the aviation sector are proponents for a sectorial approach because they believe that CR can’t be solved

individually (AGDG, 2009; Air-France & KLM, 2010). An industry can work together to raise standards, sharing

the developmental costs and the risks as well as the benefits and opportunities of improving CR standards

(Draper, 2006). As Draper continues: “Climate change and aviation are impossible for one company to solve

alone, therefore engagements with other stakeholders and firms in the aviation sector ensure greater

responsibility and builds corporate value” (Draper, 2006). So a sectorial approach enlarges the impact

towards the people and planet, shares risks and costs, increase efficiency which delivers more profit for the

20


sector. But on the other hand, it requires coordination and time. Also firms have different interests and

there is not always a party who wants to be the first-mover, initiator or first-investor.

4.3 What: Benefits and Costs of CR In this paragraph the benefits and costs of CR are addressed. It was essential to first address the ‘why’ and

‘how’, to prevent that the focus will only on what the outcomes, benefits, results or costs of CR are. Based

on the Golden Circle model, this increases the chance on success for the firm and society (Sinek, 2009).

From literature, four major benefits are identified: increased employee welfare, financial benefits, increased

reputation and competitive advantage. An overview of these benefits is given in Table 1. This also shows the

time period before the benefits are realized and on which P they have effect.

4.3.1 Employee Welfare The employee welfare belongs to the people pillar of CR. When implemented well, CR increases employee

welfare (Tsai & Hsu, 2008). Because of the new, inspiring and lively culture in the firm with the employees as

enablers, the people’s needs are more satisfied. Perceived fairness of the working environment has been

shown to affect both employee well-being (job satisfaction, stress, health, emotion) and organizationally

relevant outcomes, such as employee commitment, turnover, absenteeism, job performance, citizenship,

counter productivity (Aguilera, 2007). “Employees need pride in their work, need to believe that companies

operate in a prudent and responsible manner and care about employee health and safety” (Kleindorfer,

2005). Linking the statements by Aguilera and Kleindorfer suggests that CR improves the perceived fairness

of a firm by its employees and thus results in several benefits for both firm and employees.

When people are proud to work for a firm, because they apply CR, their productivity and performance rises

(Lynes & Dredge, 2006). The people are more satisfied because of their increased productivity, which

delivers more value and/or profit to the firm. The benefits occur on a medium-term, it takes some time

before changes in perceptions evolve in increased performance. Another effect is that when people perceive

that their performance increases, this influences their desire to work for the firm and their willingness to

participate/contribute to social change positively (Aguilera, 2007). This will attract and retain good

employees which again affects the performance of the firm (Bhattacharya, 2008).

4.3.2 Financial Benefits The second benefit is more aimed at the profit, namely financial benefits. This issue is subject of many

discussions in the literature. The scientific research is inconsistent on the relation between CR and the

financial performance of the firm: this can be positive, neutral or negative. One of the most cited opponent

is Friedman, who states that: “CR is a misuse of corporate resources that would be better spent on value-

adding internal projects or returned to shareholders” (Friedman, 1970). Firms should not bother about the

environment; they should make profit and allocate all resources on optimizing the profit.

A more positive view was presented by Freeman, based on the stakeholder theory. “Managers must satisfy

multiple stakeholders who can influence the firm” (Freeman, 1984). The interests of these stakeholders were

not always in line with the firm’s business strategy, but focused on the people and planet aspects. So it

implies that it can be beneficial for the firm to engage in certain CR activities that non-financial stakeholders

perceive to be important, because, absent this, these groups might withdraw their support for the firm. This

resulted in diverse empirical research with different results. Some indicate a neutral relation between CR

and profitability (Aupperle, 1985; A. McWilliams, 2001), while others indicate that a divestment harms the

performance (Teoh, 1999; Wright & Ferris, 1997). So the negative relations are nowadays absent or not

proven. Comment hereby is that it is assumed that the CR is implemented well. When firms invest in CR and

can’t handle the implementation, it results in a waste of money or non-optimal benefits.

21


“After more than 30 years of research, we cannot clearly conclude whether a one-dollar investment in social

initiatives returns more or less than one dollar in benefit to the shareholder” (Barnett, 2007). But as he

continues: “There is no consistent financial benefit: unique and dynamic characteristics of firms and their

environments makes sure that the returns of CR vary across firms in time and height”. An influence from the

environment can be the economic situation in the world for example. It is imaginable that CR policy in times

of a financial crisis is negatively related with the financial performance. Since the relation between CR and

financial performance is influenced by other variables like the economic situation of the environment and

the firm itself, each firm requires an individual analysis. Therefore, in chapter 5 the theory will be applied to

Schiphol Group to identify the financial benefits in practice.

But based on some of the earlier mentioned motives, a growing number of shareholders and institutional

investors began to accept the idea that strategic adoption of CR is necessary and could lead to financial

rewards in the long run (Lee, 2007). To explore this positive relation of CR and financial performance of a

firm more, the causes of these financial benefits are:

Fuel and resource efficiency (Bows, 2009; Lynes & Dredge, 2006; Tsai & Hsu, 2008). On the short

term this starts with an increased awareness among employees, who will e.g. turn off lights, shut

down computers, separate waste, come by public transport, etc. On the long-term the installation of

LED-lights, solar panels, ‘het nieuwe werken’ are some examples. They all have in common that less

resources (energy, money or people) are used or are used more efficient.

Innovations on efficiency reducing costs (Hart & Ahuja, 1996; MacKerron, Egerton, Gaskell, Parpia, &

Mourato, 2009). Due to more investments the chances on successful research & development (R&D)

increase. This can result in new innovations that increase efficiency and thus reduce costs. Examples

are the motion-controlled lights or ‘het nieuwe werken’ which reduces travel movements. Benefits

are expected on the medium-term due to the research time.

More and new customers. More customers are buying products or using services of a firm that

applied CR, because they show loyalty and are satisfied by the firm. New customers are attracted

because their high value of CR is represented by the firm. Examples are sending your mail by TNT

express or buying shoes from Nike because these firms are corporate responsible. Benefits are

expected on the medium-term because it takes some time to change the perspective of customers

and their buying behavior (Barnett, 2007).

Premium pricing. By offering a new type of product/service representing the CR values, firms can ask

premium prices for these products/services. For example: a free-range egg is more expansive than a

battery egg. There is some discussion on if consumers are willing to pay for these premium prices,

this will be elaborated more in phase 3 of this research (Barnett, 2007; Abagail McWilliams, et al.,

2006).

Risk reduction. CR improves financial performance by improving a firms relationships with relevant

stakeholders, they improve, trust grows, certain risks are declined (Barnett, 2007). A long-term

satisfied relationship with a supplier or customer reduces risks and costs on a failed delivery or

negotiations. When chosen for a sectorial approach, this collaboration reduces risks by sharing them

(Draper, 2006).

4.3.3 Reputation and Image The third benefit is an increased reputation or image of the firm. Throughout the years the valuation of a

firm’s reputation by external stakeholders more and more focused on the planet and the people aspects.

“The environmental profile of a company is known to have an effect on its liability exposure, reputation and

market value” (Hart & Ahuja, 1996). Reputation appears to be an important mediator of the relationship

between firm and stakeholder (Orlitzky, 2003). Thus to have a good relationship with your stakeholders as a

22


firm, you have to make sure that your reputation is right. CR enhances the company’s reputation (Falck &

Heblich, 2007), while not doing CR reduces the reputation drastically. Not only stakeholders devalue the

reputation of the firm itself, but if competitors do apply CR, the devaluation of the reputation only increases

more. But the focus should be more on the fact that a good CR strategy offers a way for distinguishing to the

firm. Differentiation towards CR can strengthen or maintain the reputation of the firm which adds value in

addition to allowing the firm to meet a particular market demand (Abagail McWilliams, et al., 2006).

Reputation is built on loyalty. A good perceived reputation by stakeholders makes them loyal to the firm.

The reputation is no reason to switch to a competitor. Loyalty comes by years of good service. Also

trustworthiness is an important indicator of reputation. CR increases the trustworthiness of a firm and so

strengthens the relationships with important stakeholders (Barnett, 2007). Gaining trust of stakeholders,

also takes a few years (medium-term effect).

The internal reputation is already mentioned by the employee welfare benefit. A good reputation enhances

also the internal reputation towards employees, increasing their desire to work and performance. “A good

CR reputation will also attract good employees” (Bhattacharya, 2008). This works in two-ways: employees

talk positively about their firm in their own networks and the media position the firm high in rankings as best

firms to work for.

The last important thing to mention about reputation is that it maintains public support for the firm. This is

part of the ‘license to operate’ for a firm (Warhurst, 2005). The perception of the firm by stakeholders needs

to be good enough, to prevent them to protest or harm the business of the firm. If there is no public support

for the firm, it can lose its license to operate which can lead to bankruptcy.

So reputation is a sensitive issue for firm. A reputation can be lost in a flash and it can take years before it is

(re)built. That’s also why the effects occur on a short, medium and long term. In order to get a good

reputation, all the P’s of CR should be taken into consideration.

4.3.4 Competitive Advantage A competitive advantage is closely related to the financial benefits or a positive image. A healthy financial

situation, can lead to investments in innovations in order to increase efficiency and thus create a competitive

advantage. But those benefits lead to a competitive advantage, which has more subparts. CR increases

competitive advantage by fueling innovation, enhancing customer reputation, creating high performance

workplaces, maintaining important intangible assets (community trust, employee goodwill) (Aguilera,

2007).CR can create unique selling propositions for a company (ELFAA, 2009). This uniqueness gives the firm

a competitive advantage in the market. A good CR policy/strategy and a positive image are examples, but a

high tolerance and public support are also examples of a unique proposition that can lead to competitive

advantage.

When a firm complies with laws and regulations for example, or does even more than necessary, the

tolerance for this firm by the government can increase. The firm could lobby for even sharper targets in laws

and regulations in e.g. the CO2-emission targets. Approval of these higher targets can create a competitive

advantage when competitors are not able to meet these new targets. On the other hand, when a firm for

any reason does not comply with a law or regulation, a high tolerance could ensure that this violation will be

condensed. “Governments should create and maintain level playing fields and allowing companies a license

to grow” (van Marrewijk, 2003). The license to grow is an approval for growth of the firm. When a firm has

this license to grow and competitors do not, this is a competitive advantage. So it is important to require this

license to grow, which is based on a good reputation and the amount of public support.

23


The last contributor to a competitive advantage is the fist-mover advantage. “The sooner a company acts or

spots trends, the more influence it will have in the market” (Falck & Heblich, 2007). The first-mover can

grasp the profits and gain market share before competitors are about to enter. Nowadays CR is still an

interesting area for first-movers in some industries, since not all firms have a good CR strategy/policy. So this

CR trend is an opportunity for the firm. It is also expected that the trend is that consumers are more and

more willing to pay for CR. This is another opportunity, firms need to act now in order to grasp the benefits

of the upcoming trend in the future (Kleindorfer, 2005).

4.3.5 Investments Besides the benefits for CR, there are also some costs which are most of the time investments. These

investments are needed to gain the benefits in later stages. For the employee welfare investments in

projects that improve the quality of the work environment are needed to obtain increased employee welfare

en eventually increased employee performance later. But also investments in the implementation of CR and

the clearness of the CR strategy are required since this will contribute to the willingness to work for a firm

(Bhattacharya, 2008). To obtain less energy usage, investments in LED-lighting is a possibility. This is an

investment, since LED-lights are more expensive than normal lights, but on the long-term (10 a 15 years)

they have a better business case. Identical examples are valid for more customers and premium prices.

Before you can ask for a premium price, you should be able to offer the service or product that is worth that

premium price and that customers are willing to pay extra for it.

The reputation of a firm is also related to investments, since a good reputation is not achieved in one day.

Investments in projects or aspects that contribute positively to the reputation are continuously needed.

These investments require caution, since one single negative investment can bring down a good reputation

acquired throughout a long period of time in one single day.

Together all these investments contribute to the competitive advantage of the firm. Investments to obtain

the mentioned benefits are therefore important for a firm. Therefore in later phases of this research two key

investments are elaborated in the practice at Schiphol. The first is the internal decision-making process

which determines the content and focus of the investments (chapter 8). To obtain the CR benefits by

investments, this process should also include CR aspects as people, planet and profit. The shift to CR aspects

in this process is the foundation for all other investments. The second key investment is the reputation of a

firm. This research will focus on the influence and value of a CR reputation among transfer passengers

(chapter 9).

4.4 Conclusion on the CR Theory This literature study on CR theory revealed why firms should apply CR, how to implement CR in the

organization and what benefits and investment costs CR brings along. The motives for CR are mostly of

strategic self-interest: to gain a competitive advantage or obtain financial benefits. When firms are coerced

into CR or are doing it for the good cause, the CR policy is far less efficient and effective. Both society and

firms are better off when firms use CR strategically than when they are coerced into making such

investments (Abagail McWilliams, et al., 2006). With strategic use as a motive, the implementation process is

more efficient and has less resistance. Strong inspirational leadership, open communication to all

stakeholders, CR integrated in the business strategy and a balance between PPP in CR projects are essential

factors in the implementation process. If investments in this process are made, then the intended benefits

such as financial profit, increased reputation, employee welfare and in the end a competitive advantage can

be reached. This will create balance between people, planet and profit.

24


5. CR in Practice at Schiphol The theory on CR showed that there are different motives, applications, implementations and benefits of CR.

Before this scientific theory can be compared with the practice at Schiphol, the current status and role of CR

is analyzed within this practice at Schiphol, again by asking the questions why, how and what. The history

why Schiphol uses CR and the current definition (paragraph 5.1) are followed by the motive why Schiphol is

CR (paragraph 5.2). Then how Schiphol currently uses and implemented the CR-concept is treated in

paragraph 5.3, to derive at what Schiphol sees as the benefits of CR and which costs are currently made

(paragraph 5.4) followed by a conclusion (paragraph 5.5).

5.1 History and Definition of CR at Schiphol Nowadays CR is an issue at Schiphol, but this was not always the case. In the annual report of 2002, the term

‘verantwoord ondernemen’ was first mentioned by an external professor in an interview (Schiphol Group,

2003). In the annual report of 2003 it was mentioned with a referral to a separately published document

about ‘verantwoord ondernemen’ (Schiphol Group, 2004). From 2004 and on, this document got a chapter

of two and a half pages in the annual report (Schiphol Group, 2005). The terms: people, planet and profit

were mentioned for the first time and some KPIs were presented to show percentages on the support for

the growth of Schiphol.

It took until 2009 before the document ‘verantwoord ondernemen’ was integrated with the annual report

(Schiphol Group, 2010a). This was no longer a separate document, but 20 pages in the annual report. It was

also the first time that the English term Corporate Responsibility was mentioned. This indicates that CR

became more and more important for Schiphol during the years. Schiphol Group reports about CR and it is

part of the strategy. Currently Schiphol Group defines CR as:

CR is all about aligning our company’s activities with the social, economic and environmental expectations of

our stakeholders. It demands that commercial success be gained through positive practices that aim to

promote general welfare. Success, after all, is not only measured in monetary terms but also in the

corporation’s impact on the community, on its customers and on the environment (Schiphol Group, 2010b).

5.2 Why Schiphol applies CR For Schiphol CR is important because Schiphol stands in the middle of society (literally and figuratively), due

to its big contribution to the Dutch economy and its location in a high-density area. Entrepreneurship with

respect for people, environment and surroundings is therefore crucial to maintain support for their strategy.

Subsequently, decreasing costs and increasing benefits for Schiphol’s stakeholders is key. Schiphol’s success

rate is largely dependent on the strength of stakeholder relationships.

The important aspect in Schiphol’s CR strategy is aimed at value creation: profit and CR-reputation in

Schiphol’s value chain and in the value-chain of its stakeholders. This CR-reputation is important; Schiphol

wants the recognition of a ‘clean’ operation towards its stakeholders. Schiphol identifies passengers, KLM,

the municipalities of Amsterdam and Haarlemmermeer, residents in the CROS region and their own

employees as their most important stakeholders. Stakeholders expect Schiphol to be a company with a clear

vision on CR. A company that takes social responsibility and the environment seriously, minimizes the

negative impact of its activities, has a CR policy compliant with strategy, creates openness in social impact

and finally shows leadership and makes the right choices. For more detailed information and an analysis of

stakeholders on influence vs. interest, see Appendix I.

25

Phase 1 - Chapter 5. CR in Practice at Schiphol

5.3 How CR is organized at Schiphol Corporate Responsibility and Schiphol are currently inseparable, they go hand in hand. Schiphol Group has a

vision, mission and goals on CR. CR is about balancing the aspects people, planet and profit. The profit aspect

is all about money: the airport charges, income from the shops on Schiphol, parking fees, developing and

exploiting real estate, etc. Traditionally this is Schiphol’s main concern, that’s why there are well-developed

monitoring systems to measure all these profit related aspects in euros. But since the rise of CR in the late

1990s, the aspects people and planet came in. The Direction Team (DT) of Schiphol Group saw the

importance of CR and the contribution Schiphol could and should make to society.

Based on the recognized importance and the input from stakeholders, in 2009 Schiphol developed the

following CR strategy and objectives (see Figure 11). Important to mention is the distinction between a

license to operate and a license to grow. Responsive CR is aimed at: nuisance limitation, compliance with

laws, regulations and own code of behavior and the company’s culture. It creates goodwill and improves

relationships with employees, authorities and society (good corporate citizenship) (=license to operate).

Effective strategic CR strengthens Schiphol’s strategy and competiveness, inspires its employees and creates

value for their stakeholders (=license to grow).

Figure 12: CR strategy and objectives (Schiphol Group, 2010b)

Just as with the profit aspect, monitoring and reporting about people and planet also became necessary.

Additionally, CR should be applied in all the business areas and processes of Schiphol resulting in a CR policy

that is widespread throughout the organization. To structure the broad and comprehensive CR concept,

Schiphol created 17 themes covering the people and planet aspects at Schiphol. The themes are listed in

Figure 13. Notable is the category other, which contains sustainable purchasing and mobility. They both do

not fall under people and planet, so they’re addressed separately. Mobility for example, can be more

sustainable when own personnel come to Schiphol by electric cars. This affects the energy use (CO2

emissions) and work quality (people). Another notable fact is that profit is not present as a CR category with

themes. Schiphol Group is already very capable on this and CR doesn’t apply in measuring these aspects.

26


Every theme has a director. This person is responsible for its

theme and needs to monitor the progress and performance by

KPIs. Reports are made and Schiphol starts to integrate CR in the

Management Control & Reporting System (MCRS). This is the part

of the life cycle that projects and activities go through, see Figure

14. Some themes are developed more than others, whereby the

focus for Schiphol is on work, energy and mobility. This focus is

chosen after a stakeholder analysis performed internally on

Schiphol.

To manage the directors and keep an eye on the overall

performance and progress, there is a CR Board consisting of a

delegation CR people throughout the organization. The president

of this CR Board reports directly to the board of directors. The

board is temporary before the integration of CR in the business

strategy is completed or self-sustaining. In order to get this lively

CR culture, CR Ambassadors and CR Guerillas were founded in

2010. These groups consist of Schiphol employees. Ambassadors

represent the CR policy and give inspiring lectures to departments

inside Schiphol. Guerillas increase the awareness on CR among

employees with playful actions, like changing the wires of

computer screens when left on.

To stimulate innovative and sustainable technologies, in 2010 Schiphol founded theGrounds together with

TU Delft, Wageningen UR, Imtech and TNO. The goal of theGrounds is to be a knowledge center and

incubator where entrepreneurs can work together with the founders on new technologies for a sustainable

airport. It is used to boost the ambition to be the leader in sustainability and innovation among airports.

5.4 What: Benefits and Costs of CR at Schiphol Given the current motives and phase of implementation, Schiphol identified the following CR benefits. CR

empowers Schiphol’s strategy and competitive position, inspires employees and creates value for

stakeholders. In 2009 when the CR strategy was developed, the competitive advantage of CR was the key

point. The initiators are convinced that CR is the key in the further development of the airport and delivers a

competitive advantage. But first, profit is needed to provide the license to operate. Making money is the

basis of existence for Schiphol. In order to grow, Schiphol needs a broad public support by a variety of

stakeholders. This growth needs to create value, which should be given back to these stakeholders. But

today, CR plays an important role in the growth of the airport. Therefore Schiphol should now invest in CR,

to give back the added value it delivers to society.

Figure 14: PDCA-cycle (www.pdcacyclus.nl)

Figure 13: 17 CR-themes (Schiphol Group, 2010b)

27

Phase 1 - Chapter 5. CR in Practice at Schiphol

These are mainly indirect effects. A more direct effect is that a competitive advantage can be gained when

Schiphol is better than its competitors on people and planet aspects. This results in two things. One: more

qualified employees, because they want to work for a firm that is corporately responsible. More qualified

employees will results in better performance and can lead to more profit. Two: better customers (airlines),

because they want to fly to/from an airport that acts corporate responsible. The airline will attract more

passengers, who will use Schiphol as their airport which should result in more profit (spending at the airport

and airport tax).

A second direct effect is that CR creates goodwill and improves stakeholder relationships. Applying CR at

Schiphol will show the stakeholders that Schiphol is committed to the people, planet and profit. They want

to show that it is not only about profit. By showing goodwill and good behavior, Schiphol can create

tolerance in the relationship with diverse stakeholders such as governments who set the laws and

regulations which can be essential, when issues such as expansion of the airport are discussion point.

The third benefit is that CR improves the reputation (positive media/international know-how/trust) which

will be noted by the media. As an important mainport, the media will magnify all news and activities about

Schiphol providing them with nothing but only positive examples on CR to report. This will result in

improving Schiphol’s reputation. Since a large share of passengers is transfer passengers, the international

reputation of Schiphol is also important. Scoring well in international rankings such as the Sustainability

Index and by being better than competitors improves the international reputation. Improvement in the

national and international front will help to raise the trust in stakeholder relations, and thus enhance the

reputation even more.

The fourth direct benefit is added value, whereby less costs and more profit are realized. A planet based

example is the energy costs decrease in the short-term by shutting down the lights in the office more often

or in the long-term by the replacement of old lights by LED-lights. On the people side the implementation of

‘het nieuwe werken’ results in less office-spaces. Both people and planet measures reduce the usage costs

and thus increase profits on the long-term. On the short-term investments in these measures are required to

gain the benefits in the long-term.

The fifth effect is the impact on business culture: positive, increased quality, innovative. CR at Schiphol is a

new concept, which has a positive impact on the business culture. It leads to competitive advantage, but also

increases employee welfare. Quality of work environment and work performance will increase. Also there is

more room for innovations, positively affecting the liveliness in the culture.

The benefits of the investment in theGrounds are promising. There have been pilots with a bath of algae to

clean anti-fog water and with solar panels for sustainable energy. Now there are plans to scale these pilots

up and start more innovative new pilots. theGrounds also started with a seed capital fund to attract young

and sustainable entrepreneurs to the airport. Another CR activity is the contribution to SOS Kinderdorpen

with sponsorship. SOS Kinderdorpen builds villages for children without families in third world countries. This

sponsorship money is mainly raised internally amongst employees by activities such as a lottery.

5.5 Conclusion on CR in Practice at Schiphol CR and Schiphol are currently inseparable, they go hand in hand. From 2002 it was mentioned in the year

report and in 2009 the CR strategy was developed. Schiphol now has a vision, mission and goals on CR. The

motives show that Schiphol applies CR mainly for self-interest. They want to maintain the license to operate

and gain a license to grow in the future. CR activities are a means of keeping a good reputation and

stakeholder relationship.

28


The years prior to the implementation of the CR strategy in 2009 were a little chaotic. The urgency to do

something with CR was more important than producing something of quality and meaning. Speed was more

important than quality. Nowadays this heritage is still visible. There are many CR-themes, KPIs, CR groups

(Coordination Team / CR Board), focus points and guidelines. Employees experienced CR as something that

was imposed on them, but the real motives of why you should and Schiphol should apply CR were vague.

The CR strategy in 2009 tried to clear this, but was also perceived as another policy on CR. Besides that there

is a difference in the way each theme is monitored and reported. This is caused by several reasons. First,

theme directors are free to measure and report in any form they want, as long as it complies with the

guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Second, this resulted in various KPIs. KPIs are sometimes

split up in other PI’s, on different management levels, through different departments, in different units,

quantitative versus qualitative resulting in incomparable KPIs. Third, some themes are developed more than

others. The focus for Schiphol is on work, energy and mobility. This focus is chosen after a stakeholder

analysis performed internally on Schiphol. But the real external opinion and interests of stakeholders is

lacking here.

Conversely, Schiphol acknowledges the benefits that can be obtained by a well-working CR policy. The

reputation, financial benefits and added value for stakeholders are important aspects in realizing the license

to grow and become Europe’s preferred airport. In particular the reputation is important due to the thin line

between (a big) negative or (small) positive effect on Schiphol’s reputation.

So at first sight, the combination CR and Schiphol looks appropriate. However, this is mainly from a

theoretical perspective. In practice, many examples show that Schiphol is divided and somewhat wandering

with the CR issue.

29

Phase 1 - Chapter 6. Differences and Similarities between Theory and Practice

6. Differences and Similarities between Theory and Practice The extensive elaborations of the theory and practice of CR enable a comparison between those two. The

similarities and differences between the theory and practice are identified in this chapter which fulfills the

first goal of this research and answers sub-question 1a: What are the differences and similarities between

literature on CR and the practice at Schiphol?

In general, from a theoretical perspective the practice at Schiphol is relatively in line with the scientific

theory on CR. To be clear on this: the theory at Schiphol is in line with the scientific theory, but the practical

embodiment of this theory at Schiphol is not corresponding with theory at Schiphol and as described in the

scientific literature. However, there are still some differences between the scientific theory and the theory at

Schiphol. The columns four and five in Table A-29 of Appendix IV I show the differences and the similarities

between those two.

The current definition of CR at Schiphol corresponds on two elements with the theory: success is based on

more than economic factors (1) and interactions with stakeholders are important (2). But elements like ‘in

line with business strategy’ and terms as ‘people, planet and profit’ are missing, what is one reason for the

chaotic organization and employee experience of CR.

The motive for Schiphol is mainly maintaining support for its position. Because of its big impact on society

Schiphol has the obligation to be corporately responsible. This combination between self-interest and social

obligation is positive, but the focus is now more on damage-control than on optimizing benefits. From origin

Schiphol is a profit based company and without strong commitment from the top it is hard to change the

motive of the firm. Without shared awareness on the core motive for CR in all levels of the organization it is

hard to stimulate the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of CR more effectively.

Marking the contours of this motive is a complex step. Due to the ‘false’ start of CR at Schiphol, there is a

matter of over organization and employees are confused. There are 17 themes and KPIs, but 17 are not

really key. The business and CR strategy are separated, and therefore also the corresponding decision-

making processes for CR and business. There is a lack of management agreement and strong leadership from

the top. The communication towards stakeholders is not fully transparent and complete. Initiatives for a

sectorial CR approach are absent. These are the causes of confusion today, but at the same time

opportunities of tomorrow. The seeds for making CR a part of the DNA are seeded: the founding of CR

Ambassadors, Guerillas, and theGrounds increases the awareness on CR. Now is the time to take action and

grow the seeds.

From the extensive list of ‘what’ in the CR literature, Schiphol recognizes many. There is a focus on the

importance of reputation on the CR issue and Schiphol acknowledges the potential to gain a competitive

advantage through CR. This comes back in the aim to create value for stakeholders to gather the license to

grow; an example is the forthcoming neighbor-day which is also aimed at reputation. Furthermore,

employee welfare is addressed with ‘het nieuwe werken’, premium prices are represented by the Fair-Trade

café and higher tariffs for environmental unfriendly airlines. Differences occur on an important issue. There

seems to be a difference between the theory at Schiphol, so what Schiphol says about CR, compared with

the actual practice at Schiphol, so what does Schiphol really-do? As indicated above, the Schiphol theory

shows many similarities with the scientific theory but the Schiphol practice is not in line with (both) theories.

The benefits of CR on the long-term are not known among many of the employees and if they are, they are

not rewarded or recognized from the top. An understanding of the benefits of CR is currently absent.

Therefore Table 1 represents an analysis of the theoretical benefits in relation to the impact on stakeholders,

effect (short-medium-long) and category (planet-people-profit) all theoretical benefits from the literature.

30


On the short-term awareness can reduce energy costs and a boost to the reputation. More effects are

expected on the medium and long-term, since it takes time before the investments are paid back (LED lights,

employee performance) or come to the surface (trust, loyalty, tolerance). Besides the improvements in

people and planet, the profit also benefits.

The insight in the CR-benefits for employees and the top management, improves the understanding of CR.

Currently, this insight is lacking at Schiphol. More insight can provide the opportunity for Schiphol to move

forward in the CR policy and strategy. This is related to the current perspective on CR which is aimed at the

preventing of negative CR-effects. A focus on the enhancement CR-effects will positively affect the culture at

Schiphol and creates more insight in the CR-benefits. A good example is the current awareness on

reputation: reputation is important, but preventing a bad reputation is valued higher than enhancing a good

reputation. If this changes, the benefits of CR can be harvested on the short and long-term.

Benefits Impact on Stakeholders

Effect Category

Short Medium Long Planet People Profit

Increased employee welfare

Safety

Pride

Increased performance

Employees ,, ,, ,,

X

X X

X

X X X X

X

Financial benefits

Fuel and resource efficiency

Innovations on efficiency reducing costs

More, new customers

Premium pricing

Risk reduction

- - -

Passengers/Airlines Passengers/Airlines

Employees

X X

X X

X

X

X

X X X X

X

X

X X X

Increased reputation

Loyalty

Trustworthiness

Maintain public support

All stakeholders ,, ,, ,,

X

X

X X X X

X

X

X X X X X

X X X X

Competitive advantage

Unique selling propositions

Higher tolerance

License to grow

Raise regulatory barriers

First-mover advantage

Competitors ,, ,,

,, + neighbors Governments

-

X X

X

X X X

X

X X

X

X X X

X X

X X X

Table 1: Benefits of CR

31

Phase 1 - Chapter 7. Perspectives on CR at Schiphol

7. Perspectives on CR at Schiphol To further analyze if the presumption of whether there is a difference between saying (Schiphol theory) and

doing (Schiphol practice) is present, Q-methodology is a suitable scientific tool to define the perspectives on

CR at Schiphol. Q-methodology gives insight in the perspectives of individuals to study their subjectivity on a

certain issue, which will be CR at Schiphol in this case (Watts & Stenner, 2005). Besides the unique

identification of perspectives on CR at an airport operator and effects on the implementation and execution

of the CR policy, the application of Q-methodology in the practice at Schiphol contributes to the literature on

Q-methodology by adding the experiences and results of a relevant topic in today’s world.

First, a theoretical background on Q-methodology is given in paragraph 7.1. The next paragraph 7.2 shows

how the Q-method has been applied at Schiphol and the actual analysis is presented in paragraph 7.3. Based

on this, the results consists of the identification of perspectives which consist of a set of statements

(paragraph 7.4), after which the consensus and disagreement between those perspectives is discussed.

Then, a discussion between and among perspectives is given in paragraph 7.5. At last, the results are

discussed by addressing the limitations and criticism on the Q-method in paragraph 7.6.

7.1 Theory on the Q-methodology Q-methodology was invented in 1935 by British physicist-psychologist William Stephenson. It evolved from

factor-analytic theory in the 1930s and is therefore most often associated with quantitative analysis. Besides

the statistical component, Stephenson was more interested in revealing subjectivity in any situation. For

example in aesthetic judgment, poetic interpretation, perceptions of organizational role, political attitudes,

appraisals of health care, experiences of bereavement, perspectives on life and the cosmos. It is life as lived

from the standpoint of the person living it that is typically passed over by quantitative procedures, and it is

subjectivity in this sense that Q-methodology is designed to examine and that frequently engages the

attention of the qualitative researcher interested in more than just life measured by the pound (Brown,

1996). Q-methodology "combines the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research traditions"

(Dennis & Goldberg, 1996) and in other respects provides a bridge between the two (Sell & Brown., 1984).

Although there is plenty of evidence of controversy and peer criticism regarding Q-methodology and

Stephenson’s work in the literature, particularly up until the late, it is now being widely adopted as a means

of investigation. Nowadays Q-methodology has been applied in the systematic study of a wide range of

subject matters in psychology, political science, communication, the health sciences, education, and the

behavioral and human sciences more generally, and increasingly in the policy field (Brown, 1980).

It is exactly the subjectivity that is interesting to reveal at Schiphol, to support the hypotheses that there are

differences in the theory and practice at Schiphol. In Q-methodology it is assumed that subjectivity means

nothing more than a person’s communication of his or her point of view (McKeown & Thomas, 1988).

Therefore subjectivity is always anchored in self-reference, in which the personal behavior of the person is

revealed (Brown, 1980). By ranking statements from most disagree until most agree, a person reveals his

personal experience and frame of reference on an issue. Q-methodology provides systematic means to

examine and understand the relationship between these personal experiences. “Q-studies adhere to the

methodological axiom that subjectivity is always self-referent” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988).

One last motive of applying Q-methodology to the practice at Schiphol is that Q-methodology has the

capacity to allow a more effective form of policy making and implementation process (Barry & Proops,

1999). It implies that the results of the Q-method are valuable input for phase 2 of this research, i.e. the

decision-making process.

32


7.2 Applying the Q-method to Schiphol This paragraph will describe in essence how the Q-methodology was applied to the case-study CR at

Schiphol. For a detailed description, technical explanations of the technique, and a comprehensive review of

its application, see in particular (Brown, 1980; McKeown & Thomas, 1988).

7.2.1 Defining the Q-set The first step is to define the Q-set, called the ‘concourse’ of the study. This is a sample of statements

covering all opinions related to a certain topic that can be found among members of a social group

(Stephenson, 1978). The literature study in chapter 3 and several interviews with CR-related people at

Schiphol provided the input for all the statements. The literature study covers the theory part on CR, while

the interviews provide statements from the practice at Schiphol. This combination of two techniques

provides a sufficient amount of 83 statements suitable for the purpose of this study.

To select a representative Q-set and for practical reasons, the statements are categorized into themes. These

themes together cover all perspectives on the issue. The themes are:

1) decision-making process (statements such as guidelines for decision-making forms, valuation of projects,

PDCA-cycle)

2) strategy (statements such as strong leadership, CR motives, interwoven with business strategy)

3) stakeholders and reputation (statements such as willingness to pay, communication, image)

4) costs and benefits (statements such as what delivers CR, competitive advantage, efficiency)

5) implementation (statements such as sectorial approach, extra effort, top-down)

Then the MECE (mutually exclusive collectively exhaustive) principle was applied to the statements. This

makes sure that the statements are mutually exclusive; there is no overlap within the statements per theme.

But the statements are also collectively exhaustive; so the themes together cover all relevant issues leaving

no gap in the perspectives on CR). The final Q-set consists of 50 statements, see Appendix IV A, which is

conform with the requirement that 40–60 subjects are sufficient (Watts & Stenner, 2005). The final sample is

naturalistic in the sense that the statements were derived from interviews with participants about CR at

Schiphol and structured in the sense that theoretical sub-themes were used to categorize the concourse,

which ensured coverage of all relevant issues related to CR at Schiphol in the final sample (McKeown &

Thomas, 1988). Before starting the sorting of the statements, the Q-set was reviewed by domain experts and

tested in a pilot study, to ensure content validity and check if the Q-set is balanced.

7.2.3 Defining the P-set The next step is to define the pool of interviewees, called a P-set. A big part of these P-set consists of people

that were interviewed before. For Schiphol it is important to know if all people that are involved with CR

from their function, share the same perspective or have different perspectives. Therefore the full CR-board,

some CR-ambassadors and some CR-guerillas are in the P-set. But to gather all perspectives on CR, it is

important to have a good representation of the organization. Therefore people from all levels in the

organization (board vs. executives), with different functions (operational, managerial), of different ages

(young vs. old) and sex (male vs. female) were selected. The 32 people in the P-set, who were interviewed

from November 2011 till January 2012, can be found in Appendix IV B. Since Q-studies proceed typologically

and reveal qualitative segments that exist in a population, there is far less need to rely on large numbers of

respondents (Brown, 1986). P-sets of 30 to 50 are generally more than sufficient for most studies of public

opinion. 30 participants are considered an adequate minimum number to achieve stability in the resulting

factor structure (Brown, 1980; McNaught & Howard, 2001). This Q-study meets this requirement. The term

factor is often used in Q-methodology and is a synonym for the more practical term perspective. In this

report both are used based on their origin, but they have the same meaning.

33


The final P-set consists of 21 men and 11 women of which 7 are directors, 9 managers and 16 have an

operational function. 19 respondents are involved with CR, 13 are not. The CR Board is represented by 6

members and the CR Coordination Team by 5. Furthermore, 5 people are younger than 30 years old, 8 are

between 30 and 40, 10 between 40 and 50 and 4 between 50 and 60 years old. Based on these

characteristics, the P-set represents a plausible reflection of the employees at Schiphol.

A notable fact is the personal contribution of the CEO, Jos Nijhuis, to the Q-method. This contributes to the

impact and power of the research results. For example, the CEO defines the strategy of the organization and

makes final decisions so it is interesting to include his perception. Also employees expect strong leadership

from the CEO and value his participation which shows commitment to the CR issue.

7.2.3 The Q-sorting Procedure The Q-sorting procedure itself consists of each person ranking the set of 50 statements according to some

condition of instruction, in this case from -5 (mostly disagree) to +5 (mostly agree). The respondents were

asked emphatically to rank the statements from their own perspective as an employee of Schiphol, to avoid

mixing the personal perspectives with the professional perspective (which can vary per person).

The first step in ranking the statements was to put each statement into boxes named disagree, neutral/not

relevant/don’t know and agree. This made sure all statements were seen and read once before the actual

ranking procedure starts. Thereafter the statement-cards were laid down on the distribution-form (Appendix

IV C). The Q-sort statements are conventionally arrayed in a forced, quasi normal distribution (Brown, 1986),

with a fixed number of places per score. For example, there are only 2 places for -5 and +5, while there are 5

for -2 and +2. Although the use of a forced distribution may appear to risk distortion of the naturalistic

structure of the participant’s viewpoint, in fact comparisons of forced and unforced formats indicate a

negligible format effect (Brown, 1980). It should be stressed that this is a relative, not absolute, scale. It may

be the case that a participant agrees with all of the statements; even so, a ranking is still possible (Barry &

Proops, 1999). The ‘pyramidal’ structure of this Q sort is typical and is used to encourage the participants to

give careful consideration to the ranking they wish to achieve, bringing out true feelings in response

(=subjectivity) (Barry & Proops, 1999; Prasad, 2001). Both the symmetry and predetermined numbers of

statements in each category facilitate the quantitative methods of correlation and factor analysis (Brown,

1980; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Valenta, 1997).

For this study, a short questionnaire was added to obtain demographics, such as age, gender, function,

department and CR-involvedness in function for making further distinctions. Next to that, the reasons behind

respondents’ extreme ranked statements, remarkable or interesting card-positions and additional comments

or missing statements were asked in open-ended questions. Such post hoc analyses ordinarily investigate: (a)

how the participant has interpreted the statements given especially high or low rankings in their Q sort, and

what implications those statements have in the context of their overall viewpoint; (b) if they missed any

aspect of the issue they believed was relevant to their position (van Eeten, 2001); and (c) if there are any

further items about which the participant would like to pass comment, which they have not understood, or

which they simply found confusing. Such open-ended comments are a vital part of the Q methodological

procedure, for they will aid the later interpretation of the sorting configurations (and viewpoints) captured

by each of the emergent factors (Watts & Stenner, 2005). Point (b) also checks the representatives of the Q-

set, answers given during the interviews raised no questions as to the sample’s validity.

7.3 Analysis of the Q-sorts The next step is to analyze the 32 Q-sorts, which were inserted in the PQMethod software (version 2.20, Dec

2011). This software is designed especially for Q-methodology (Schmolck, 2002). To identify intercorrelated

Q-sorts, a 32 x 32 (n=32) correlation matrix was calculated and can be found in Appendix IV D. The

34


coefficients indicate the degree of similarity between each Q-sort and the others. This matrix was the input

for factor analysis, revealing which factors (=perspectives) are present at Schiphol. Hence, two participants

that load onto the same factor will have created very similar item configurations. Each factor duly captures a

different statement configuration which is nonetheless shared by (and which is characteristic of) the

participants who load onto that factor (Watts & Stenner, 2005). The factor analysis was based on the

centroid method for its longest use in Q-methodology and its computational ease. There were some critics

on this relatively easy method, but research shows that this method does not underperform compared to

others methods such as principal component (PCA). Actually they produce virtually the same results (Brown,

1980).

The results of the unrotated factor analysis are shown in Appendix IV E. Eight factors are extracted, whereby

factor 1 explains 43% of the variation. This indicates that 43% of the people share this perspective. But to

derive at the final set of interpretable factors, the factors must satisfy two conditions: 1) its eigenvalue must

be greater than 1.0 and 2) it must have a minimum of two Q-sorts that load significantly upon it alone

(Stenner, 2003). All of the eight factors do meet these two conditions, but based on conceptual reasons only

four factors are considered in further analysis. Reasons for this are the practical interpretation for Schiphol;

four factors are easier to understand and people are more likely to identify themselves with a factor.

Furthermore, the correlation matrix showed overall a quite positive perspective whereby it is hard to

distinguish eight factors in this positive field.

So, four factors were rotated by using varimax rotation. Varimax is appropriate for an exploratory study, like

this, since it is an automatic routine for rotating a factor solution to simple structure (Stenner, 2003). The

outcome of this rotation is the factor matrix, shown in Figure 15..

Figure 15: Factor matrix

35


Persons (called factor exemplars) are assigned to a perspective, based on their loadings. These are the Q-

sorts of the respondents that significantly and solely load on a factor and can therefore be considered as

representative for the thought pattern present in the factor on which they load (Kroesen & Bröer, 2009). Via

the formula 2.58*(1/√n) with n=32 it is defined that Q sorts loadings at ±0.46 or over are statistically

significant at the 0.01 level. This is the formula for a reversed t-test, whereby not the significance of a

correlation is tested but the value determining this significance. However, the method requires to maximize

the total amount of single loaders and to minimize the double loaders. By raising this level slightly to ±0.51,

there are 27 persons loading on a factor without having double loads. Hence, 84.3% of the data are used in

the final phase of the analysis where the factors are merged into factor arrays. This array will be represented

in the results, which are presented in the next paragraph.

7.4 Results of the Q-methodology To get an impression of the overall opinion on CR at Schiphol, an overview of the top-5 most agreed and

disagreed statements is given in Table 2 and Table 3. The ranking is based on the sum of the individual scores

per respondent.

No. Statement

1) Strong leadership/management agreement from the top is required in order to successful implement CR at Schiphol (4)

2) CR strategy should be in line with Schiphol’s business strategy (27)

3) CR strategy plays an important role in the license to grow (17)

4) In order to successful implement CR and ensure consistency, all levels in the organization should apply and integrate CR (5)

5) CR gains a competitive advantage (12) Table 2: Top-5 most agreed factors

No. Statement

1) Schiphol should stop with CR (50)

2) I see CR as something unwanted; an extra effort with no results (48)

3) Transfer passengers choose Schiphol for its CR reputation (41)

4) Current CR organization and strategy is sufficient (29)

5) CR related guidelines for decisions-making forms are not needed (22) Table 3: Top-5 most disagreed statements

The headlines of these tables are that Schiphol should continue with CR since it gains a competitive

advantage and influences the license to grow, but with a different approach and strategy. The current

organization and strategy is not sufficient, a new strategy which incorporates CR should be implemented in

all levels of the organization. Inspiration and agreement to this strategy is provided by strong leadership and

incentives to realize are given by adjusted guidelines in the decision-making process. In short, this is the

overall view of the organization whereby most of the respondents can identify themselves with the listed

statements.

7.4.1 The Identification of Factors Next, the four extracted factors represent a certain perspective. These perspectives are interpreted

subsequently based on high and low scoring statements within each factor. The full scores of statements per

factor can be found in Appendix IV F.

Factor 1: The Communicative Believer This factor is shared by 11 persons and can explain 20% of the total variance. This perspective really believes

that CR is the way forward for Schiphol. “We should definitely continue, but with a different course than we

do today”. The strong disagreement statements confirm this quote, by stating that Schiphol should not stop

36


with CR (50), it is not unwanted (48) and the current organization and strategy is not sufficient (29). Today

the wrong motives are present, while “CR is something that you have to do from your belief, and not

because it should be done”. Then Schiphol can gather the license to grow (17), gain a competitive advantage

(12) “to win the war in the constantly smaller differences between airports” and become Europe’s preferred

airport (30). This factor has the highest positive score on this statement, while other factors are more neutral

(factor 2 and 3) or even strongly negative (factor 4).” CR creates value for the future to Schiphol”. But to

reach that, the business strategy should become integrated with the CR strategy (27) which should be

propagated as inspiration by the top (4): “Inspire, no command”.

Besides the belief, communication plays an important role. The internal and external communication to all

relevant stakeholders needs to be improved (42) “to create a higher acceptance level in the neighborhood”

by having a more open communication (3). No ‘green washing’, but a fair communication. “If you really want

to reach something, you have to do it together with your stakeholders”. “Schiphol can and need to grasp the

lead in that”. The implementation of this change is in this perspective not a process of 3-5 years (34). “We

can start today” and “CR is already there for a long time but now we gave it more attention in media, society

and even a fancy English name. So it is already partly in the organization.”

Figure 16: The Communicative Believer (left: www.clipart.com/441339, right: www.powerpeoria.com)

So this factor represents the communicative believer. “CR is a thing for believers” and “something you have

to belief in as an organization, it is a mindset, while having this mindset is a competitive advantage” to

realize future growth for Schiphol, without forgetting good and more open communication.

Factor 2: The Strategic ChangerThis factor is shared by 8 persons and can explain 16% of the total variance. Statements in the field of

strategy are scoring high in this factor. All the (CR) activities should be strategic and related to the core

competences (1) of Schiphol, whereby the overall strategy is in line with the CR strategy (27). Then the

strategy can play an important role in the license to grow (17): “CR is the reason to exist for the long-term

future”.

Nowadays it is more focused on the license to operate, “which are the basics and you have to do that right”,

but this limits growth. Currently this strategy is not sufficient enough and should be more focused on the

license to grow, without forgetting your basics. “You should do it good or you should not do it at all”. Change

is therefore required. A first step in this change is strong leadership and management agreement from the

top (4): “the CEO should act more inspirational on this issue, as a real leader”. Then the developed overall

strategy, which includes CR, can be implemented in the whole organization (5). “It should become well

anchored in the culture, the first step is hereby important”. To create incentives for realizing this balance,

37


the CR KPIs should besides the profit KPIs be linked to the salary and bonus of managers (32). “If we need

that, we will do that”.

Therefore, it helps that CR is not unwanted (48), but the balance between people, planet and profit is not

right yet. This perspective is the biggest proponent of the equality of people, planet and profit. But “this

balance changes over time” and “PPP are equal but one is just a little more equal”, which is the profit.

“Without profit, there is no airport and no opportunity to give back to people and planet”. Thereby image is

definitely not more important than people and planet (44) as others might say, but “a good image follows

automatically from a good CR strategy”.

Currently Schiphol is capable enough to realize a successful CR strategy: “use the resources you have,

technologies are available so we are crazy if we don’t use it as Schiphol”. But a strategic change in the right

direction is necessary to actually make CR a success.

Factor 3: The Balanced Profiteer

This factor is shared by 3 persons and can explain 12% of the total variance. Again strong inspirational

leadership (4), one overall business strategy including CR (27) implemented in all levels of Schiphol are

strong positive statements. Therefore this perspective even highlights more the role of the leaders by

agreeing that CR should be implemented top-down to succeed.

But this perspective takes a more preserved viewpoint on CR. There is agreement that the current situation

requires some, mainly internal, changes but the own position of the firm is important and the impact of CR is

marginal, according to this perspective. “CR is important in the license to grow, but if we do nothing the

continuity of our business is not influenced much”. The fact that CR is only present in the left pillar of the

vision of Schiphol is therefore “fine” and the right pillar with profit should continue as it is. “Only profit is the

Figure 17: The Strategic Changer (left: gobeyondmba.nl, right: acorporatedecision.com.au)

Figure 18: The Balanced Profiteer (left: cartoons.com, right: healthinsuranceproviders.com)

38


most important, but it should be more balanced than today”. This is confirmed by the strong disagreement

on the equality of people, planet and profit (26), but on the other hand they strongly emphasize that a

positive business case in euros is not always be required (20). People and planet factors are too hard to

quantify and should be taken into account in the current qualitative way (25) by deciding on investments

(23), which confirms the profit focus. Sometimes, even the “image is more important than people and

planet”.

As mentioned, the perspective is preserved and internally focused. This is proven by the affection to take

control in a sectorial approach (49) and the aim to first create internal structure before going external (37).

“An important point of success is the internal structure, which should be created with strong leadership and

change management”. Profit first, since this is the basis for investments in people and planet. Strong

leadership and internal focus on an improved interwoven strategy characterize this perspective.

Factor 4: The Numerical Collaborator

This factor is shared by 5 persons and can explain 12% of the total variance. Typical for this perspective is the

strong focus on quantification, which will increase awareness and involvement of CR (25). “Like Schiphol

quantified the profit aspect, the people and planet aspects should be measured in numerical values”. “First

you have to do it well and quantify CR in order to gain more acceptance both internally and externally”.

Currently there is a difference between saying and doing at Schiphol (28), which “leaders can change”. But

“we should not hide too much behind the statement that leaders are not committed, we can do something

about this on our own”. “Thereby you just have to do the thing which you are good at”, which for Schiphol is

being an airport operator. Schiphol naturally is a place where actors come together and interact. This is an

excellent opportunity for Schiphol to take control and stimulate others (49) to reduce CR in the whole sector

(47). “The chain is important for Schiphol since its dependence on passengers and airlines. If we do it with

the together with the whole sector, we can take the biggest steps in CR. Therefore it is essential that

Schiphol should take the lead in this in order to grasp the benefits of CR on the long-term”.

It is necessary for Schiphol to be corporately responsible, but it should be applied to the normal-way of doing

business without something extraordinary. CR will not make Schiphol Europe’s preferred airport (30). This

perspective also acknowledges mentioned adjustments as more quantification and collaboration. Thereby

Schiphol should not use CR to rank better than others, since that is not the right motive on CR (40). Because

transfer passengers are still not choosing an airport on their CR reputation (41) the effects of these rankings

are marginal.

So, a good numerical foundation with a no-nonsense Calvinistic approach is the way to deal with CR: “meten

is weten”. “CR is part of our life nowadays and given the social function of Schiphol, we should contribute to

CR”. “But in the end it is still business and we have to have something left”.

Figure 19: The Numerical Collaborator (left: specialneedstoys.com, right: lowerpark.cheshire.org.uk)

39


Factor Overview

An overview of the factors and the scores of each statement within that factor is given by the factor arrays in Table 4. This table represents the ideal Q-sort for each factor.

Factor Arrays

Nr Statements on Corporate Responsibility at Schiphol 1 2 3 4

1 CR activities should always be strategic and contribute to the competitive advantage of the firm -1 4 0 3

2 Young people are able to make a more balanced decision on people, planet and profit -2 0 2 -1

3 Openness in CR communication towards all internal and external stakeholders results in more support and understanding

4 2 1 3

4 Strong leadership/management agreement from the top is required in order to successful implement CR at Schiphol 5 5 5 2

5 In order to successful implement CR and ensure consistency, all levels in the organization should apply and integrate CR 3 4 4 4

6 CR must create the greatest social good at the least possible cost. It’s all about efficiency or cost-effectiveness -3 -1 -2 0

7 The question for companies has become not whether to commit to CR, but how to do so in the most cost-effective manner

-1 1 1 0

8 Integrating CR into the corporate strategy requires, as a minimum, the inclusion of stakeholder input 2 2 3 2

9 Consumers are willing to pay for social and environmental benefits of goods and services 1 0 -1 0

10 CR reduces costs and increases efficiency by cutting resource use and waste generation 0 2 -1 2

11 CR avoids or delays regulatory action 0 -2 1 1

12 CR gains a competitive advantage 4 3 1 1

13 CR contributes in creating a positive green image 2 1 1 1

14 Expanding limited resources (money) on social issues necessarily decreases the competitive position of a firm by unnecessarily increasing its costs

-3 -4 -4 -1

15 There is a positive relation between CR and R&D investments 1 0 0 3

16 There is a positive relation between CR and advertising 0 0 0 0

17 CR strategy plays an important role in the license to grow (creates value for shareholders) 4 5 2 3

18 The incorporation of aviation within the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme is an important first step in addressing reducing pollution

0 -1 0 0

19 Self-interest is the working assumption of most firms participating in CR 1 -1 1 1

20 Decisions on investments always need a positive business case -2 -2 -4 2

21 The valuation of CR-project is based on ‘natte vinger’ work 1 -3 2 -1

22 CR related guidelines for decisions-making forms are not needed -3 -1 -2 -2

23 CR aspects are monitored and reported, but are not considered in investments -1 -2 2 -2

24 The airport park is an eye-opener indicating that awareness on CR is rewarded with realization of the project -1 -1 -3 -3

25 Schiphol should make the relevant benefits of CR quantifiable, this will increase the awareness and involvement on PPP 1 2 -2 5

26 People, planet and profit are equally important for Schiphol 0 4 -5 -3

27 CR strategy should be in line with Schiphol's business strategy 5 3 5 5

28 There is a difference between saying and doing on CR at Schiphol (like the annual report) 1 -1 3 4

29 Current CR organization and strategy is sufficient -4 -3 -4 -3

30 CR will make Schiphol Europe’s preferred airport 3 0 0 -4

31 The CR paragraph in the annual report hinders further development of CR strategy 0 -3 -1 -1

32 CR performance by reaching KPIs should be linked to the salary and bonus of managers 0 3 -2 -2

33 The CR themes (work, mobility and energy) are representing the correct focus for Schiphol -1 2 0 1

34 Implementing CR successfully in the organization is a process of around 3-5 years -3 1 2 1

35 CR strategy should focus on the license to operate (apply to laws & regulations); you have to do the basics right -2 1 -3 -3

36 CR needs to be implemented top-down instead of bottom-up -2 -2 3 0

37 First create internal structure before the external CR can work out right 2 0 4 2

38 Internal resources are currently sufficient for realizing CR ideas -1 0 0 -1

39 CR is only present in the left pillar (socio-economic function) of the vision and not in the right (entrepreneurial management), it should be the foundation for both

2 1 4 1

40 It is good that Schiphol uses CR for its PR reputation, in order to rank better than competitive airports 1 1 3 -2

41 Transfer passengers chose Schiphol for its CR reputation -4 -4 -1 -5

42 External CR communication towards stakeholders neighbors is sufficient -4 -3 -1 -1

43 By ‘Green washing’ its activities, Schiphol hurts its reputation 0 0 -1 -1

44 Image is more important than people and planet -2 -4 1 -2

45 Schiphol should be a 'first mover' and act inspiring instead of reacting on others 3 3 0 0

46 Financial contribution to SOS-Kinderdorpen/Unicef is not in line with Schiphol's core business and CR strategy, and therefore a waste of money

-1 -2 -3 0

47 The emissions in aviation can only be reduced when the whole aviation industry applies CR in their daily business 2 -1 -1 -4

48 I see CR as something unwanted, an extra effort with almost no results -5 -5 -3 -4

49 Schiphol should take control and stimulate other stakeholders in a sectorial approach for CR 3 1 -2 4

50 Schiphol should stop with CR -5 -5 -5 -5

Table 4: Factor arrays per factor

40


7.4.2 Consensus and Disagreement Statements The cumulative variance that can be explained by the factors together is 60%. Appendix IV G shows the

mutual correlations between the factors. All correlations are moderately positive and fall between the

values 0.44 and 0.70. This is in line with the positive correlation matrix for the Q-sorts and indicates that

there is consensus between the factors within the organization. Apart from this, it confirms that there are

many statements on which there is consensus. The top-6 consensus statements are listed in Table 5. These

are the statements that have the most consensus between all the factors. The full list of consensus and

disagreement statements can be found in Appendix IV H.

No. Consensus Statements Factor 1 2 3 4

13 CR contributes in creating a positive green image 2 1 1 1

50 Schiphol should stop with CR -5 -5 -5 -5

16 There is a positive relation between CR and advertising 0 0 0 0

8 Integrating CR into the corporate strategy requires, as a minimum, the inclusion of stakeholder input

2 2 3 2

5 In order to successful implement CR and ensure consistency, all levels in the organization should apply and integrate CR

3 4 4 4

22 CR related guidelines for decisions-making forms are not needed -3 -1 -2 -2

Table 5: Consensus statements

There is strong consensus that Schiphol should not stop with CR (50), all factor scores are on the extreme

disagree -5. The whole organization is convinced that stopping with CR is not an option; it will harm the

business in the long-term. Stakeholders are also an important factor and should be taken into account as this

is in line with the overall agreement in statement 8. Due to the complex position of Schiphol in the

(inter)national society and economy, listening to stakeholders is key for both license to operate and grow.

Besides this focus on the external input, there is also consensus on the internal integration of CR in the

organization. This requires that all levels in the organization implement CR to ensure consistency (8).

Furthermore, all factors agree that guidelines related to CR in decisions-making forms are needed (22). This

stimulates the implementation and execution of the CR strategy. If the employees have to report about it in

the decision-forms, their awareness on a balanced decision increases. Then there is an overall small

agreement on the contribution of CR to a green image (13). This statement was somewhat difficult to answer

for the respondents, since the overall opinion was that the aim of CR is not to gain a positive image. It is

more a positive side-effect, which should not get too much attention to prevent ‘green washing’. The neutral

consensus on statement 16 is caused by a lack of knowledge. Respondents did not know if there was a

relationship between advertising and if there was the direction was unknown.

It is relevant to know on which statements have a consensus. They confirm that the CR is the way forward

(50) but that some changes are still required in terms of efficient implementation (5 and 22) and policy (8). It

is even more interesting to know which statements have no consensus. Those are the points of discussion

which have impact on the performance or decision-making process at Schiphol. Table 6 lists the top-6

statements which have the widest range in ranking between the factors.

Schiphol is divided on the statement that people, planet and profit are equally important (26). Two factors

strongly disagree, one is neutral and the other strongly agrees. It is mainly the profit aspect that is seen more

important than the people and planet. The ‘disagree’ perspectives state that firstly you need profit, since this

is the basis of your existence and provides an opportunity for growth. When the profit is made, it could be

invested into people or planet but the opinions are again divided in this statement. In statement 20, the

three ‘disagree’ factors say that in some cases a negative business case on profit is acceptable and even

41


necessary to realize investments in people and planet. But that the motives differ between factors is clear,

given the combination of scores on statement 26 and 20. Factor 3 states that profit is most important, but

they realize that not all investments require a positive business case in euros. Factor 4 on the other hand,

also states that profit is more important and that business cases should always be positive from a more

conservative and Calvinistic viewpoint. Factor 2 is again different in acknowledging the equality of people,

planet and profit and shows that by permitting negative business cases caused by the contribution of people

and planet aspects.

No. Disagreement Statements Factor 1 2 3 4

26 People, planet and profit are equally important for Schiphol 0 4 -5 -3

30 CR will make Schiphol Europe’s preferred airport 3 0 0 -4

20 Decisions on investments always need a positive business case -2 -2 -4 2

44 Image is more important than people and planet -2 -4 1 -2

49 Schiphol should take control and stimulate other stakeholders in a sectorial approach for CR

3 1 -2 4

1 CR activities should always be strategic and contribute to the competitive advantage of the firm

-1 4 0 3

Table 6: Disagreement statements

These differences in perspectives are also visible in other statements of disagreement. The believers

perspective (factor 1) are proponents of the statement that CR will make Schiphol Europe’s preferred

airport, while factor 2 and 3 are neutral and factor 4 strongly disagrees. Unity on the overall vision and goal

of Schiphol is essential for the performance and efficiency of work in the organization. In statements 44, 49

and 1 there is a consensus for three factors, while one factor has another opinion. Factor 3 distinguishes

itself in stating that image is more important than people and planet, hence this perspective represents the

balanced profiteers. Although profit is more important, image does contributes to that so focusing on

yourself instead of the sector is also a statement based on profit motives. Lastly, factors 1 and 3 are more or

less neutral on the continuing contribution of CR activities to the business strategy. It is less important and

not relevant (factor 3), while the believers take the point of view that CR can also be non-strategic.

Schiphol has multiple options on how to deal with the disagreement statements. The first point of view is

that Schiphol should improve the disagreement or even reach consensus on these disagreement statements

among the different perspectives. A second point of view is that disagreement is good for an organization: to

avoid tunnel vision and to get lively discussions between persons that represent a different perspective,

which most of the time leads to better solutions. Acknowledging the disagreement statements is a first step,

but solving it requires more steps which will be discussed in the recommendations on phase 1.

7.4.3 Relations between the Characteristics of Respondents and Factors The factors are represented by respondents, which all have different characteristics. By conducting the Q-

method, questions were asked about function, age, gender, CR involvedness and special position in the CR

policy. Functions are divided in directors including the CEO, managers and operational which also includes

everybody that is no director or manager. Age is represented by 5 categories (1=<30, 2=30-40, 3=40-50,

4=50-60, 5=>60) and gender is obviously male or female. CR involvedness is specified as: “do you have any

task related to CR in your function?” The category special represents members of the CR Board (mainly

directors), CR Coordination Team (mainly managers and operational employees) and no position in the CR

policy at Schiphol. Then the data was inserted in SPSS and analyzed by crosstabs and chi-square tests. The

crosstabs are represented below, thereby none of the variables met the conditions of a valid chi-square test

due to the lack of respondents per cell.

42


The analysis of the functions in relation to the factors shows some interesting results. Factor 2 (strategic

changers) has the biggest percentage (50%) directors), factor 1 (communicative believer) consists mostly of

managers (45.5%) and factor 3 (balanced profiteer) and 4 (numerical collaborator) consists mainly on

operational employees (respectively 66.7% and 80%). Directors determine the strategy and they recognize

that change in the CR policy is required; this declares their presence in factor 2 (including the CEO).

Considering the row of directors in absolute amounts, 4 out of 6 (66.7%) of the directors are in this factor 2.

Managers need to communicate this strategy further to the operational employees, whereby they believe in

the benefits of CR (5 out of 8=62.5%). Operational employees at Schiphol are traditionally more focused on

numbers and profit, which declares the presence in perspectives 3 and 4 but when considering the row there

division looks more equal.

Factor

Total 1 2 3 4

Function Director Count 2 4 0 0 6

% within Factor 18.2% 50.0% .0% .0% 22.2%

Manager Count 5 1 1 1 8

% within Factor 45.5% 12.5% 33.3% 20.0% 29.6%

Operational Count 4 3 2 4 13

% within Factor 36.4% 37.5% 66.7% 80.0% 48.1%

Total Count 11 8 3 5 27

% within Factor 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 7: Crosstab function vs. factor

One of the statements was that young people are able to make a more balanced decision on people, planet

and profit than older people. The factors scores are somewhat neutral (-2/0/2/-1) and the crosstab shows

that all factors consists of people of all ages. There is only one outlier: factor 2 consists for 50% of people

between 50 and 60 years old, which is caused by the fact that directors are mostly of older age. So the

statement is not confirmed, even though 3 out of 5 people under 30 years old state in factor 1 that they

disagree with that statement.

Factor

Total 1 2 3 4

Age <30 Count 3 0 1 1 5

% within Factor 27.3% .0% 33.3% 20.0% 18.5%

30-40 Count 2 2 1 2 7

% within Factor 18.2% 25.0% 33.3% 40.0% 25.9%

40-50 Count 4 2 1 0 7

% within Factor 36.4% 25.0% 33.3% .0% 25.9%

50-60 Count 2 4 0 2 8

% within Factor 18.2% 50.0% .0% 40.0% 29.6%


% within Factor 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 8: Crosstab age vs. factor

43


The gender crosstab shows that factor 1 (the communicative believers) is the only factor in which the

percentage women is higher than men. Looking on the horizontal row of females, also the absolute amount

of women is within factor 1 (6 out of 9= 66.7%). The two women in factor 2 (strategic changers) are

directors, who logically have a more strategic mindset. The other factors are mainly represented by men,

mainly caused by the presence of 2/3 men in the P-set.

Factor

Total 1 2 3 4

Gender female Count 6 2 0 1 9

% within Factor 54.5% 25.0% .0% 20.0% 33.3%

male Count 5 6 3 4 18

% within Factor 45.5% 75.0% 100.0% 80.0% 66.7%


% within Factor 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 9: Crosstab gender vs. factor

Factor 1 (the communicative believer) or factor 2 (the strategic changer) consists for a majority of employees

that are involved with CR in their function (respectively 63.6% and 75%), while factor 3 (the balanced

profiteer) and 4 (the numerical collaborator) have a majority of employees that are not involved with CR

(66.7% and 60%). You can be involved in CR because you believe in it and want to communicate it to others

(factor 1), but you can also become involved in CR and because of that become a believer. Strategic changers

also acknowledge the need for CR and that current CR-policy is not sufficient. Hence, factor 1 and 2 were

mainly represented by managers and directors who are logically more involved with CR because of their

function. This relation also applies to the non-involved operational employees in factor 3 and 4.

Factor

Total 1 2 3 4

Involved no Count 4 2 2 3 11

% within Factor 36.4% 25.0% 66.7% 60.0% 40.7%

yes Count 7 6 1 2 16

% within Factor 63.6% 75.0% 33.3% 40.0% 59.3%


% within Factor 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 10: Crosstab involved CR vs. factor

To specify the relation between if the respondents are part of the CR Board or CR coordination team and the

factor, two crosstabs are used. Table 11 shows that factor 1 and 2 are the only factors with members of the

CR Board, but that there is no majority. Looking at Table 12, which summed up the rows to 100%, 60% of the

CR Board is in factor 2 (strategic changers) and 40% in factor 1 (communicative believer). The CR

Coordination Team is more in factor 1 than factor 2, which is caused by the correlation with the function,

since managers and directors are present in the CR board or coordination-team. The crosstabs show that the

CR Board and the CR Coordination Team are quite united. The division between factors 1 and 2 is not a

critical danger to this unity, given the high correlation of factor 1 and 2 (0.7). Furthermore, it confirms that

managers are more communicative believers and that directors are strategic changers.

44


Factor

Total 1 2 3 4

Special CR Board Count 2 3 0 0 5

% within Factor 18.2% 37.5% .0% .0% 18.5%

CR coordination

Team

Count 3 1 1 0 5

% within Factor 27.3% 12.5% 33.3% .0% 18.5%

none Count 6 4 2 5 17

% within Factor 54.5% 50.0% 66.7% 100.0% 63.0%


% within Factor 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 11: Crosstab Special vs. Factor

Factor

Total 1 2 3 4

Special CR Board Count 2 3 0 0 5

% within Special 40.0% 60.0% .0% .0% 100.0%

CR coordination

Team

Count 3 1 1 0 5

% within Special 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% .0% 100.0%

none Count 6 4 2 5 17

% within Special 35.3% 23.5% 11.8% 29.4% 100.0%


% within Special 40.7% 29.6% 11.1% 18.5% 100.0%

Table 12: Crosstab factor vs. special

7.5 Discussion among and between Perspectives The awareness on the existence of different perspectives on CR at Schiphol is essential information in

creating and implementing a CR strategy in the organization. To illustrate the implications of the strategy on

the perspectives, the discussion will elaborate on the internal contradictions in the perspectives (paragraph

7.5.1) and a discussion between different perspectives (paragraph 7.5.2).

7.5.1 Discussion between Persons in a Perspective The first discussion is on the internal contradictions between persons in one perspective, so what happens if

you put two persons which share the same perspective together. Inside a perspective there is still a division

of opinions, which will be elaborated below per factor.

The Communicative Believer

Among the persons in the communicative believer perspective, the issues communication, collaboration and

competitive advantage are valued high in this perspective while at the same time there are minor

differences are present. Communication can be internal and external. Many persons stress the importance

of communication and inspiration towards external stakeholders: “we as a facilitator should do what we’re

good at, so facilitate and inspire stakeholders on CR”, “Schiphol should take the CR lead”, “inspire your

clients, but not command”. This group states that this communication is leading in obtaining a license to

grow and thus a competitive advantage in the end. Others focus more on the collaboration instead of

communication: “you have to do it together if you really want to reach something”, “include and satisfy

stakeholders”. This is an interesting point, both want to communicate and include stakeholders with a

45


difference on taking the lead versus facilitating and inspiring. My personal opinion is that Schiphol first

should include and communicate to the stakeholders in an interactive way. Since the natural position as

facilitator, stakeholders can view Schiphol as an inspirer or initiator naturally. But I do not recommend

Schiphol to take the lead to much in this process to not affect the level of acceptance for its ‘normal

business’.

On the internal communication, the deviation is about the equality of PPP. While the true believers state

that PPP are equal important, more conservative believers state that profit is needed first to invest in people

and planet. The managers and directors are more part of the conservative group in relation to the

operational employees, which sounds logic to me due to that they are more focused on and responsible for

the profit of the whole firm. The last distinction is on the competitive advantage: some state that “having a

CR mindset” is already a competitive advantage, while others are more focused on the effects of CR as more

passengers, attract better airlines and employees. Personally I think that one does not exclude the other and

that having a mindset will contribute or speed up the realization of these benefits.

The Strategic Changer

The main disagreement in this factor is on the equality of PPP. The CEO explicitly mentioned the equality of

PPP, while others make a small adjustment by stating that “profit is a little more important” and again

another group states that this “balance between PPP shifts over time”. Although the CEO later on mentioned

the importance of profit for Schiphol, I think in the end profit still will prevail. Another interesting point of

discussion is that most of the people mention the need for inspirational leadership from the top (including

the top itself) but that is not yet realized. The leaders have control and can act more inspirational right away.

Therefore it is a little contradictive that this has not happened yet. One final point of discussion is on the

type of incentive to give “hands and feet” to the CR strategy. Some point out the importance of linking

people and planet KPIs to the salary of managers and directors, while others put forward the need for a CR

department. My opinion is that the link to the salary is more necessary in the beginning, to stimulate the CR

strategy from the start. Later on, it can be investigated if a specific department on CR is necessary.

The balanced profiteer

The main point of discussion is already in the name of this perspective. The persons in this perspective state

that a balance is needed between PPP but that profit should always be the dominating factor. But what the

proportion of each P exactly is in this balance can be influenced per project and the “news of the day” and is

therefore uncertain. Furthermore, some persons go one step further by stating that “profit is the most

important and if we do not do CR it will not affect our business significantly”. I personally share the opinion

of others in this perspective by disagreeing with this and acknowledging the need for CR but that profit

remains predominant.

The Numerical Collaborator

Although the persons are all in this perspective they have slightly different opinions. It looks like some

especially focus on collaboration and others on the quantification and profit aspects as self-interest.

Apparently this combinations leads to identical Q-sorts. This can be explained by the precondition of

(internal and external) collaboration to realize internal profit. It is the license to operate that must be

realized first, which requires collaboration with stakeholders. Profit and quantification of people and planet

are also necessary in this license to operate and therefore the persons share their opinions in this

perspective.

7.5.2 A Dialogue between Perspectives Besides elaborating on the internal differences in a perspective, an elaboration on a possible dialogue

between the different perspectives is also interesting because this can occur if the new CR policy is

46


implemented at Schiphol. If persons from different perspective need to work together on a project it is good

to know what the perspective of the other person is. This can enhance the efficiency and atmosphere within

the project team. Each possible combination of factors is discussed below by addressing the overlapping and

contradictive statements.

The Communicative Believer versus The Strategic Changer

The two perspectives with the biggest amount of persons (in this research) disagree strongly on the

statement that CR activities should always be strategic and contribute to the competitive advantage of the

firm. Logically the strategic changers strongly agree, while the communicative believers even disagree. This is

caused by a different motive that is present within these perspectives. The strategic changers have more the

mentality to “do as much as necessary” which means: just do enough to avoid negative effects (publicity,

attention). Besides, if they do CR activities it should contribute to the strategy of Schiphol. The

communicative believers on the other hand have the mentality to “do as much as possible” because “you

have to do CR out of good belief and for the good case of society”. These differences also caused the

problems of the current CR policy. To avoid these problems with the new CR policy, Schiphol should take

these differences in mind. Furthermore, the strategic changers would link the CR performance to the salaries

of managers and less prefer a sectorial approach. The communicative believers propose the opposite.

Thereby these factors both agree on that a positive business case is not always needed, the combined top-

down and bottom-up implementation and the need for inspirational leadership from the top.

The Communicative Believer versus The Balanced Profiteer

The biggest disagreement between the communicative believers and the balanced profiteers occur on the

equality of PPP. The profiteers attach significantly more value to profit. Thereby they disagree with the

communicative approach on a sectorial approach with Schiphol as initiator. Thereby they have disagreement

on the implementation on CR. The balanced profiteers prefer a top-down approach, while the believers

prefer a mix between top-down and bottom-up. This should be taken into account when people from these

factors collaborate. Strong consensus is on one strategy which integrates CR in the business and the need for

guidelines in the decision-making process.

The Communicative Believer versus The Numerical Collaborator

The communicative believer and the numerical collaborator have huge disagreement on the role CR plays in

becoming Europe’s preferred. The believers are ambitious and state that CR will make Schiphol Europe’s

preferred airport while the collaborators strongly disagree with that. This can result in clashes on

ambitiousness by conducting projects together or following orders between management layers. The

collaborators have the intention to collaborate, but are more conservative compared to the believers. They

prefer a dominant and leadership role for Schiphol, while the collaborators prefer a more wait-and-see

approach in collaboration. Besides the shared interest in communication and collaboration, there are

differences on monetary terms. The collaborators are more focused on profit (require positive business

cases and CR activities should be strategic) while the believers believe in a balance between PPP.

The Strategic Changer versus The Balanced Profiteer

Again there is disagreement on the equality of PPP, because the balanced profiteers simply value profit far

more important. Also image is more important according to the profiteers which can cause problems in the

marketing of CR activities, but they both agree that green washing is dangerous for Schiphol’s image. They

also give a different interpretation to the implementation of the CR strategy. Both acknowledge the need for

strong leadership, but the profiteers prefer a top-down approach and internal structure while the strategic

changers do not agree with this. This can cause trouble in the implementation of a CR strategy proposed by

the strategic changers, the changers should be aware on the structural needs of the profiteers.

47


The Strategic Changer versus The Numerical Collaborator

Like with the balanced profiteers, the strategic changers also have the same difference in opinion with the

numerical collaborators on the equality of PPP. Profit is again dominant, which is also visible in the need for

a positive business case and the believe that not CR but other aspects like an efficient operation and profit

will make Schiphol Europe’s preferred airport according to the numerical collaborators. Thereby problems

can occur if the salary of a numerical collaborative manager is linked to CR by a strategic changer, since this

is experienced as unwanted. They share opinions on one strategy, open communication and the inclusion of

stakeholders in the strategy.

The Balanced Profiteer versus The Numerical Collaborator

While the numerical collaborators argue that Schiphol should take control and stimulate others in the sector,

the balanced profiteers disagree. The same accounts to the everlasting need for a positive business case and

quantifiable benefits by the numerical collaborators. The profiteers somewhat surprisingly disagree with

this. I think they know that a positive business case in which people and planet are fully quantified is not a

prerequisite to make profit. The current situation shows that this indeed is true. They both acknowledge the

need for change: there is too much saying and too less doing at Schiphol whereby guidelines on the decision-

making process are preferred to support the change.

7.6 Criticism and limitations of the Q-methodology Q-methodology is criticized for a number of reasons. When repeated on the same persons Q-methodology

does not necessarily yield the same results which led to questions regarding reliability. However, social

psychology sees no problem with this as there is no expectation that an individual will express the same

views on two separate occasions (W. Stainton Rogers, 1991). It should be noted that there is some

disagreement in the literature here since Brown maintains that a Q-sort can be replicated with 85%

consistency up to a year later (Brown, 1980).

Q-methodology relies for its effectiveness on the cooperation and frankness of the respondent. This may

have its disadvantages. For different reasons, a the respondent can come up with a fake Q-sort (Oppenheim,

1992). For example, people do not reveal their true perspective by answering strategically or conform the

expectations of the interviewer. This can be the case by the CEO, whose answers should be in line with

Schiphol’s strategy to avoid undermining his authority. To minimize these effects, the Q-methodology was

anonymous and confidential so that employees could freely answer without showing their perspective to

other employees.

Another critic aims at the interpretation of the statements. Of course, how one reads the factors may be

influenced by where one is coming from (R. Stainton Rogers, 1995). Therefore, the people in the P-set are

originated from different layers and functions in the organization. Before the ranking of the statements

started, it was explicitly named that they should rank the statements conform their perspective as Schiphol

employee and not as their personal perspective.

Others criticize the small sample size. “The results of Q-methodology are less influenced by low response

rates compared with the results of other surveys” (Valenta, 1997). Since the core of Q-methodology is not

the amount of participants, but the representation of different perspectives in relation to the issue of study

(Akhtar-Danesh, Baumann, & Cordingley, 2008). That’s why theoretical sampling, selecting participants on

theoretical grounds, is allowed. I thrived to achieve a P-set that represents the total Schiphol employees, by

criteria as position in organization, CR involvedness, gender and age. Although I was referred to many

persons involved in the CR-world, I think I achieved this goal by also asking people from the field hockey

team and security. Even the highest ranks (CEO and directors) at Schiphol participated in the Q-

48


methodology, which confirms the relevance and importance of CR and the applicability and power of Q-

methodology in practice.

However, even with effective piloting there is a sense in which a Q-set can never really be complete (as there

is always ‘something else’ that might potentially be said). Yet this is actually of little importance, the

procedural detail of Q-methodology ensures that a Q-set only needs to contain a representative

condensation of information (Watts & Stenner, 2005). Therefore the selection of the Q-set based on

literature and interviews is sufficient.

The final critic focuses on the fixed distribution which can influence the ranking of the statements. But

research by Watts shows that the chosen distribution actually makes no noticeable contribution to the

factors which emerge from a particular study. Contradictory as it may seem, therefore, a forced distribution

is actually no more restrictive than a ‘free’ distribution. If Q-methodologists generally prefer the forced

distribution, therefore, it is because it delimits unnecessary work and because it is convenient for their

participants (Watts & Stenner, 2005).

49

Phase 1. Conclusion Phase 1

Conclusion Phase 1 With the supplementation of the differences and similarities between the theory and practice with the Q-

method results, the first sub-question can be answered. The question was: What are the differences and

similarities between literature on CR and the practice at Schiphol?

It can be concluded that the current organization and strategy of CR is not sufficient at Schiphol. The

expectation that there was a difference between saying and doing at Schiphol is after the literature review is

confirmed by the results of the Q-methodology. Considering only the scientific theory and Schiphol’s theory

on CR, it can be concluded that Schiphol is on the right path forward and understands the core principles of

CR. The effects CR has on the reputation, the potential financial benefits and the added value for stakeholder

that can be reached in order to obtain the license to grow are acknowledged and described in the theory.

But an understanding of these benefits of CR is currently absent. Therefore, CR is not rewarded in terms of

reaching KPIs or goals since there is still a discrepancy in the business and CR strategy, with the result that CR

remains separated from the business. The heritage of being a profit-based company with a profit focused

culture, the focus on damage-control instead of optimizing CR-benefits, a lack of inspiration/commitment

from the top and without shared awareness in all levels on the right motive for CR makes it difficult to

execute the theory on CR in practice.

This raises the question to map the current perspectives in order to reveal the consensus and disagreement

in the organization. If this is known, the implementation of the CR policy can be more efficient and effective.

Therefore the second sub-question is: What are the perspectives on CR in the organization Schiphol?

The Q-methodology showed that there are multiple perspectives on CR at Schiphol: the communicative

believer, the strategic changer, the balanced profiteer and the numerical collaborator. The communicative

believer views CR as a mindset and something you have to believe in as an organization. Having this mindset,

being corporately responsible and being transparent and thorough in communication on CR towards

stakeholders is a competitive advantage to realize future growth for Schiphol. The strategic changer views

strategy as the key to success. A CR strategy that balances people, planet and profit is required but not yet

present. Change in strategy towards more commitment and strong leadership is required to realize success

with CR. The balanced profiteer represents the old profit-based culture and views profit as the dominant

aspect. Profit is needed first before people and planet are addressed without underestimating the

importance of those in this internal focused perspective. The numerical collaborator focusses on

collaboration with stakeholders and addresses a sectorial approach. Quantification of people and planet

besides profit are needed to create a better balance in which there should still be profit in the end.

The overall perspective is that Schiphol should continue with CR. It is not unwanted in the business culture

and all perspectives acknowledge the need to apply CR. Only the range in this need stretches from limited

effort to ambitious plans. This caused the difference in saying and doing on CR at Schiphol. The theory could

not work out in practice due to different perspectives on CR. The determined CR strategy from the top was

executed with a different perspective at management and operational level and thus somewhat sabotaged.

Without enough reward, commitment, responsibility and adjustment from the top the CR policy and strategy

were never effective and efficient. But the insight in the consensus and disagreement between different

perspectives provides the opportunity for Schiphol to change its CR policy, strategy and organization.

Recommendations & Implications Phase 1 The conclusions showed the presence of different perspectives, but also a general positive attitude towards

CR which makes Schiphol a fertile organization to make CR successful. Based on the research in this chapter

50


the following recommendations are proposed. The implications of these recommendations for Schiphol are

discussed below.

1) Create a clear, consistent definition on CR with the right terminology. This definition is listed in the new

CR strategy and communicated from the top to make clear what CR means for Schiphol. For instance: CR

is about balancing people, planet and profit in all levels and activities of Schiphol, which are weaved

within the business strategy and aligned with stakeholder expectations. This new definition is easy to

realize and will create a clear understanding and unity on CR and defines that CR is important for

Schiphol.

The next recommendations follow on from the consensus points between the different perspectives. They

have a high level of acceptance in the organization and therefore relatively easy to implement.

Recommendations 2 and 3 focus on the ‘why’ CR, while recommendations 4 to 7 show how these proposed

recommendations can be realized (implications). The ‘how’ is the section where the biggest steps need to be

made by Schiphol, since it caused the current problems. When the theory has no ‘hands and feet’ or roots in

practice, the discrepancy in Schiphol’s theory and practice on CR policy will continue to exist.

2) Do not focus on staying in business (license to operate) but on expansion and growth (license to grow).

All perspectives state that CR plays a role in the license to grow and that the license to operate is more

the basis of your existence, which you should always do right. Therefore Schiphol should ‘broaden its

horizon’ and focus on the combination of CR and the license to grow, which is an important shift in

mindset.

3) Create more understanding and insight in the benefits of CR and the contribution to a competitive

advantage. This will not only enhance the motivation and performance of employees, but contributes in

acquiring the benefits of CR and the competitive advantage in the end. An implication is to differentiate

between short and long term benefits; make them visible, quantifiable and understandable to

employees. Table 1 in the previous paragraph provided an overview of the benefits differentiated to the

impact time and category. This will make the CR benefits more tangible.

4) Integrate and align the CR strategy with the business strategy and do not create a separate CR strategy.

The underlying mindset when doing business should always have CR in mind. The strategy is still to

become Europe’s preferred airport, but by having a CR mindset. This is also logical, since CR contributes

to this goal.

5) Create incentives and inspiration from the top by showing commitment to and the importance of CR for

Schiphol, supported by a clear definition, goals and one interwoven CR/business strategy. Besides this,

Schiphol should continue and stimulate internal initiatives which contribute to the positive vibe of the CR

culture. This process is illustrated in Figure 20. Start by top-down implementation of the CR strategy with

inspiration and leadership, followed by bottom-up initiatives or projects. Essential in this process is that

those bottom-up initiatives are recognized and consistently valued by the top. This is highly dependent

on the balance of people, planet and profit in the decision-making process on investments in projects, see

chapter 8. This makes it possible to align these projects with the strategy and provide lessons learned

upon the CR policy. In the ideal situation the initiatives arise bottom-up and are adjusted by the top. This

will create a loop which is self-sustaining and self-strengthening and a perfect environment and culture to

obtain the benefits of CR.

51

Phase 1. Recommendations & Implications Phase 1

Figure 20: Implementation steps of CR

6) Create incentives for the implementation of the CR policy. An implication is to make someone on a

director level, preferably the CEO, responsible for the CR performance of Schiphol. This person should be

held accountable for the results or implementation of CR. The CEO has the biggest internal and external

exposure and it shows that CR really matters to an organization. An implication that is more applicable to

the whole organization is to link the CR performance to the salary or bonus of employees on manager

level. When the bonus is not only dependent on the profit performance but also on the people and planet

performance, the manager is stimulated to also meet the people and planet goals.

Given the disagreement between the different perspectives, the biggest win for Schiphol is to be aware of

the existence of different perspectives. So:

7) Present and communicate the existence of different perspectives through the whole organization on all

levels. Awareness on the different perspectives and the consensus and disagreement issues is essential in

all facets of working at Schiphol. Work-shops given by the CR ambassadors are an excellent way to

facilitate this.

It is not recommended to solve all disagreements between perspectives, to avoid tunnel vision and since it is

not feasible. There is too much division inside and between perspectives, and it is difficult to change the

mindset of everyone. Discussions and dialogues between and among perspectives contribute to the overall

performance of Schiphol. According to the statements with the most disagreement, this has the following

implications:

8) The equality of people, planet and profit. Awareness on people and planet besides solely focusing on

profit is already a big step forward. It is hard to change the culture on a short-term basis, so profit will

continue to be dominant in the coming years. But by more and more discussion and awareness on CR, on

the longer-term PPP might be equal for Schiphol.

9) Align CR activities and projects to the strategy of Schiphol so that they make a contribution to the

strategy as much as possible. It is not always feasible to align all activities to the strategy, since some just

need to be done for maintenance reasons or are obliged by laws and regulations. If Schiphol tries to align

its activities to its core competencies, it will increase the efficiency. According to this theory by Porter, the

contribution to SOS/Kinderdorpen and UNICEF is not in line with this theory. Therefore they need to find

alternatives that would achieve this such as supporting the accessibility of third-world countries to the

world by developing airports or the ‘neighbor day’.

10) A positive business case in investments is not always required. The perspectives agree that Schiphol

overall should still make a profit, otherwise there is no room for investments at all. So Schiphol should

Inspirational

leadershipTop

Bottom

Management

Agreement

CR ActivitesOrganization

1

Board

Lessons

learned

Lively CR

culture

2

Board

Organization

3

Top-down Bottom-up

Self-sustaining

Self-strengthening

Loop

52


strive for a positive business case, but it should not be a decisive criteria. For example: if a project costs a

little more but greatly reduces the energy costs, should this project be preferred above the cheaper one?

Chapter 8 continues with this question and proposes a new framework.

11) Image is not more important than people and planet. Although there is disagreement on this, the image

of Schiphol is determined by people and planet. If Schiphol becomes corporately responsible, it will

positively affect its image. More attention to the image, marketing and communication aspects of a CR

activity are therefore nonetheless needed. The image is further specified in chapter 9.

The recommendations above all focused on the internal organization of CR. But the connection to external

stakeholders is definitely not less important, as indicated by recommendation 11.

12) Communicate transparently and fully towards stakeholders. Communicate all things related to CR, it will

give them a complete and better view of the activities at Schiphol. Interactions such as with the

‘neighbor day’ and the passenger experience of CR are suitable activities for Schiphol to expose its

intentions. Feedback and input from these activities and stakeholders in general are important to take

into account, since they provide for a large extent the license to grow.

13) Schiphol should take a wait-and-see role in the sectorial approach to address CR. Although Schiphol has

an excellent position as being an operator, it is recommended to first become corporately responsible

itself. This is mainly in the self-interest of Schiphol, to gain a competitive advantage in relation to

competitive airports. The focus on the sectorial approach is of subsequent care due to the relatively small

impact as polluter and employer. Given the disagreement in this statement, the wait-and-see role is the

most suitable for Schiphol.

Investments in CR are required today, to gain a competitive advantage in the future. A complete overview

and summary of this phase is given in Appendix IV K.

Further Research

This conclusion also demonstrates the need for further research. First, an improvement of the decision-

making process is wanted (phase 2). This to stimulate the awareness on CR amongst the employees and

support the new improved strategy. Second, investigate if CR does play a role in the decision by transfer

passengers in choosing their transfer airport (phase 3). The appearance opposed a significant influence of

the CR reputation in this choice, but research is lacking. Therefore in phase 3 a choice-experiment will be

executed to verify this statement. Third, other options for further research are to investigate in more detail

the way different recommendations should be implemented at Schiphol. Organizational changes are most of

the time complex and face serious resistance. For example: what are the exact implications of integrating the

business and CR strategy? Or what is the feasibility of a sectorial approach and how should this be

organized?

53

Phase 2 – Chapter 8. Phase 2 - A Framework for Decision-making Process

Phase 2 - A Framework for

Decision-making Process

Schiphol wants to create a balance between people, planet and profit (phase 1). Furthermore, the results of

the Q-method showed that guidelines are required and wanted to improve the decision-making process.

These guidelines should support the new forthcoming strategy which includes CR. Besides that, an

adjustment to the current decision-making process can bring order in the chaos and increase the awareness

on people, planet and profit. This phase analyzes the problems and limitations of the current decision-

making process and comes up with a new design for this process: ‘The Balanced Framework’.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent,

but the one most responsive to change.”

Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), English naturalist

54


8. The Decision-making Process In this chapter, a framework for the decision-making process at Schiphol is presented. This process consists

of two phases: 1) submission of decision-forms and 2) the actual decision on investments by the Investment

Committee (IC). Currently, profit is the dominant aspect in both phases. By submitting decision forms in the

first phase, the format of the document focuses extensively on profit aspects, while the people and planet

aspects are only addressed qualitatively. This is already an improvement compared to the years before when

there was no attention to people and planet at all, but there is still a long road ahead. When the decision-

forms are filled in correctly and checked by controllers, the IC makes the decision whether or not to invest in

a project. A positive business case in euros (and thus profit) is often the only criterion. The last year’s people

and planet aspects are considered more often in investment decisions, but these decisions are not bounded

to guidelines or a framework. Hence, there is no consistency in the valuation of neither different projects

(Project 1 or 2) nor the different variants of projects (1A or 1B).

Paragraph 8.1 gives an overview of the literature on decision-making in organizations and introduces

scorecards and other investment tools and frameworks. Based on the lessons learned from these

frameworks, the requirements and constraints for the design of the new framework are presented in

paragraph 8.2. The Balanced Framework is presented in paragraph 8.3 where after in paragraph 8.4 the

framework is validated and verified. The implementation steps and road ahead are addressed in paragraph

8.5.

8.1 Literature on Decision-making The importance of balancing people, planet and profit in the business strategy has increased. Next to profit,

people and planet should also be taken into account in management systems. But measuring these new

aspects with the original profit aspects is almost impossible and ineffective due to the difficult quantification.

Separate management systems were designed to monitor and report on the people and planet however,

these systems operated separately from the general profit management system. Therefore, those systems

were rarely integrated and thus the economical contribution of people and planet remained unclear (Figge,

Hahn, Schaltegger, & Wagner, 2002). The contribution and benefits are certainly available, as the literature

in chapter 4 shows. Therefore several tools and frameworks are designed to integrate these systems. They

will now be introduced one by one.

8.1.1 Scorecards The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a management tool to support the successful implementation of corporate

strategies. It claims to identify the 15-25 strategically most relevant aspects and to link them causally and

hierarchically towards the long-term success measured by the financial perspective of the firm (Kaplan &

Norton, 1992). The strategies are formulated from four perspectives, see Figure 21, to make sure all relevant

strategies and objectives are taken into account.

55

Phase 2 – Chapter 8. The Decision-making Process

The BSC does not specifically address people and planet, which results in the absence of these aspects in the

scorecard. Figge adapted the BSC into a tool for value-based sustainability management by integrating the

three pillars (people, planet and profit) into the BSC. “The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) helps to

implement soft factors such as environmental or social objectives within the core management of business

instead of just adding satellite systems” (Figge, et al., 2002). There are three advantages of adding the three

pillars into the framework. First, people and planet are not endangered by the financial position of the firm

due to continuous presence. Second, it now serves as an appropriate role model for other businesses. Third,

the complementary relation of the 3 P’s is covered. Also the SBSC requires asking specific questions for

people and planet aspects. Do they represent and contribute significant to a strategic core issue and its

drivers? This selection based on strategic contribution is together with the earlier named categorization into

three pillars, inspiration for the design of ‘The Balanced Framework’ in paragraph 8.3. The advantages of the

SBSC are the openness of the approach and the option to embed it in the wider context of strategic

management. Disadvantage is that is suitable on business-unit level and difficult on firm level, due to specific

strategies per business-unit.

Figure 21: The BSC (left) (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) and the RBS (right) (van der Woerd, 2004)

Another follow-up of the BSC is the Responsive Business Scorecard (RBS), which adds one additional

perspective and reshuffles the others to highlight people, planet and profit more (van der Woerd, 2004). It

specifically includes stakeholder interactions, since they play an important role in defining strategy and are

limited addressed in the BSC.

The success of a tool or framework is dependent on the culture of the firm and for CR also on the stage the

firm is in. There are five stages, Appendix V F, where organizations go through as they move along the

learning curve of developing a sense of CR (Zadek, 2004). The successive stages are defensive (it’s not our job

to fix that), compliant (we’ll do as much as we have to), managerial (it’s the business, stupid), strategic (it

gives us a competitive advantage) and civil (we need to make sure everybody does it). Schiphol is currently

moving from the compliant stage towards the managerial stage. Although there are some perspectives that

say that Schiphol is in the strategic or even civil stage, this is not the case for the whole organization. And

that is besides the indicated difference in saying and doing at Schiphol.

56


The stage in which Schiphol finds itself is confirmed by the Transition Matrix. This matrix suggests the ideal

type institutions per value system (van Marrewijk, 2004). It indicates the paradigm shifts per

discipline/department as manifested in the subsequent ideal type of organizations. The value systems are

compliance-driven (absolute order, hierarchy, duty), profit-driven (success, entrepreneurship, personal

esteem), care-driven (egalitarian order, community, honesty) and systematic-driven (synergy, integrity, long-

term insights). Schiphol finds itself in the profit-driven value system on CR, it is more than just doing what is

necessary but mainly focused on personal benefits in profit terms. Although there is no indication of a

growth or learning cycle, on a CR scale the compliance system is the beginning and systemic driven is the end

of an imaginary path.

In both stages by Zadek and van Marrewijk, Schiphol is currently at the beginning of becoming a civil or

systematic CR company. This has implications on success of scorecards and frameworks. The BSC is most

suitable for the profit-driven stage, the current stage of Schiphol. Obviously this looks like the right decision-

framework, but Schiphol needs to move on to the next stage. Therefore application of the BSC framework is

not in line with the ambition of Schiphol and therefore not efficient. Since the RBS and the SBSC are more or

less follow-ups on the BSC, they require that the firm is familiar with the BSC. Since this is not the case at

Schiphol, implementation will require a heavy demand on management, employees and stakeholders. It is

unnecessary and inefficient to make such a demand. Besides that, scorecards help to implement strategy.

But at Schiphol, where is currently no right CR strategy, this will cause problems. After all it is inefficient to

start with something that incomplete and likely to change in the near future.

8.1.2 Investment Tools In the past, two other tools were advised to Schiphol which shows the importance of trying to solve this

problem, however since the problem still exists it is apparent that these tools were unsuccessful.

The first tool was launched in 2009 by Schiphol’s capacity- manager Wouter van Daal. It is a framework to

make a Schiphol broad assessment of investments by going through four steps (van Daal, 2009). The first

step is to translate the strategic goals to a maximum of five drivers with a measurable KPI. Then the weight

of the drivers is determined by a pairwise comparison together with management teams. In the third step

the projects are placed in a matrix. This matrix scores the projects on the current KPI performance versus the

strategic impact of the project on a five-point scale (none to extreme).The output of the tool is that it

enables to steer on strategic added value and not only on costs.

The result of this output was that it tried to change the culture. Investments were not only made on the

basis of costs but also on strategic value and this was one of the reasons why there was resistance to this

tool. Furthermore, the transparency of investments increased as it was easier to check on which grounds an

investment was made. This was not always wanted by the IC, since they now had to justify every investment

by this tool. Despite this, the output of the tool was only an advice and not bounded to a decision.

The second tool was presented in the summer of 2011 by Altran Sustainable Solution. Their assessment was

to focus on what the business controller can do about sustainability and how this should be quantified in

business cases. In their solution, the decision on investment is based upon the sum of return, risk and value

(Altran Sustainable Solutions, 2011). The return is pure financial, with costs, revenues and a NPV. The non-

financial aspect value is based upon the contribution to goals or KPIs. Scores on a scale from 1 to 5 (low to

high contribution) are given to each goal. The same scaling is applied to the aspect risk, which is based upon

the potential risks in different phases of the project. Summing these non-financial scores gives an indication

of the score of a project in relation to other projects.

57


The tool was presented, but not implemented. There is still a high subjectivity in the non-financial aspects,

like in what is a high or medium contribution or the difference between a 3 and a 4. But it is hard to compare

different projects on the same goals, since the aim and reason for different projects is different. With this

tool you can only compare projects that are close-related to each other, for instance on energy. On the other

hand, the tool is suitable to compare different variants of a project, like electric versus semi-electric cars.

Also the relation of projects to their contribution to goals is an inspirational idea.

8.1.3 Other Frameworks The Sustainable Footprint Methodology is a framework to operationalize sustainability in project

management (Appendix V C). It analyzes several relevant social, environmental and economical impacts of a

project for different phases of project management (Oehlmann, 2010). Thereby the pillars people, planet

and profit are present and related to the project phases: pre-phase, execution and operation. Inside this

matrix, the impacts on each category is given in order to assist the project manager in making a more

balanced decision.

Although this framework is designed for project management and not for investments, it provides some

input. The categorization into the three P pillars and the interpretation of the elements per P pillar are also

relevant for the decision-making process at Schiphol. It is hard to use in investments, since there is no overall

scoring on elements and these elements are not related. It is used to increase the awareness, but the link to

scoring and weighting different projects is missing.

A final framework that is worth noticing is the Prioritization Matrix by Atlanta International Airport

(Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, 2011). They prioritize initiatives by defining scores on

economic, environmental and social criteria. These scores are standardized to 0, 10 or 20 and represent the

qualitative values: no increase, minor increase or major increase. In the end a weighted average over the

three categories is calculated and together with a score on other indicators such as consistency with the

master plan a final score is given.

Inspiration is again derived from the categorization into three pillars, which can be weighted separately. The

translation from qualitative to quantitative scores is good, but the quantification of the qualitative aspects

itself is missing. It is not defined what is a major or a minor increase. Besides that, the influence of other

scores in the end such as the alignment with the master plan is a valuable addition.

8.2 Requirements for ‘The Balanced Framework’ This overview and evaluation of various frameworks to address or integrate the people and planet aspect in

the profit management systems provides some useful lessons learned and inspirations for a new framework.

It is necessary to design a new framework for the decision-making process at Schiphol, since none of the

aforementioned frameworks are applicable in the Schiphol situation. They are not designed specifically for

Schiphol’s goal that is to generalize the valuation of CR in the decision-making process; therefore they

cannot reach their full potential. This is needed to create enough acceptance for the implementation and the

actual use of the framework by Schiphol.

Besides the gathered inspiration and lessons learned from the earlier mentioned frameworks, there is more

literature in the field of decision-making that is relevant to derive at a list of requirements for the design of

the new framework. Besides the specific goal of the framework for Schiphol, a framework itself stimulates

the awareness in an organization. “The best protection against bad decisions is awareness, forewarned is

forearmed” (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 1998). The structure of a disciplined framework with people,

planet and profit, requires people to think about and report on these aspects. Moreover, a disciplined

58


approach by using a framework limits the chance on other errors. Hammond, Keeney and Raiffa identify four

hidden-traps:

1) Forecasters take the form of over cautiousness, or prudence. “They bet on the safe side”.

2) “Be aware of anchoring and sunk-costs to justify earlier decisions”.

3) “Overconfidence about accuracy”.

4) Decision-makers may miss attractive opportunities to or expose themselves to far greater risk than they

realize, when there is no framework.

So structure limits errors, but too much structure limits the flexibility. Decisions support frameworks must be

flexible enough to accommodate differences in institutional settings, indigenous capabilities, and culturally

motivated, decision-making styles (Greening & Bernowb, 2004). Thus it should fit with the culture of

Schiphol and be applicable to all departments of the organization in order to create the needed consistency.

Thereby flexibility also related to accessibility. The framework should not be fixed, but employees should

have the freedom to adjust or improve the framework based on their experiences and usage of the

framework. Feedback and learning is therefore an important requirement for the framework. Not only the

framework itself should be adjustable, but the framework should also steer on and provide the user with

feedback. “Managers rarely get clear feedback about their accuracy of estimations, while they have the need

for honest input and review by anyone” (Hammond, et al., 1998). When this is incorporated in the new

framework, it works self-enhancing since the framework itself and its users will learn from the gathered

experience.

The non-usage of the investment tool at Schiphol is caused by two other important requirements:

transparency and simplicity. Transparency lies on a sliding scale: you should be able to verify results and

decisions which require openness, but this can reveal practices in the decision-making process that should

not be exposed to everybody. Finding the right balance is a requirement for the framework. Simplicity

addresses a high usability for users of the framework; it should be understandable and not too complex. This

contributes to the acceptance of the framework within the organization.

In short, the design requirements for the new framework are: transparency, simplicity, flexibility and

accessibility.

8.3 Designing ‘The Balanced Framework’ Based on the requirements, literature and lessons learned from other frameworks, a new framework for the

decision-making process at Schiphol is designed. The framework is called ‘The Balanced Framework’, since it

improves the balance between PPP in project investments and decision-making. The goal of the new

framework is to describe how the new decision-making process works. Although MCDA is used, the goal is

not to prescribe all possible scenarios which can occur during the use of the framework, since this limits the

flexibility and accessibility of the framework.

A decision comes from the various departments of the four business units at Schiphol. All these departments

have projects which are in line with the strategy, determined by the Board of Directors. But due to the huge

variety in departments, there is also a huge variety in projects. All these projects need to be in line with the

overall strategy, and therefore they need to be valued the same way. An example is a project at Airfield

Maintenance Services (AMS) about the maintenance of the runway with new machines versus a project at

Consumers to decide on new lights in the shops at Plaza. Or whether or not to invest in an algae bath versus

types of de-icing liquids. So a general valuation of those different projects is needed.

59


Figure 22: Organization of Schiphol

Therefore, in line with the forthcoming strategy, a project will also have a people, planet and profit

component. This will create more balance in the decision-making and stimulate the awareness on the people

and planet components. Based on these components a decision will be made: go or no go.

Each of the components is different and

consists of various aspects. For planet

this is energy, waste, emissions, etc.,

while for people this is for example the

quality of the work environment. For a

project, the relevant aspects per P

should be identified after which they

together determine the value per P. This

is required to compare the people,

planet and profit components with each

other.

The first two figures describe the

occasion for the framework and set the

foundation for design. Upcoming

paragraphs describe the real design of

the framework with new elements. The

framework will be based on the multi-

criteria decision-analysis (MCDA) theory

since the situation can be characterized

as a multi-criteria problem. The key ‘challenge’ for MCDA methods is the identification of ‘important’

attributes, ranking of importance, and reaching a consensus within a group of decision makers for these

elements.

Since the current decision-making process consists of two phases, the formulation of the decision forms and

the decision on investment, these phases need different decision-making techniques: scaling and weighting.

8.3.1 Scaling People, Planet and Profit The first phase is scaling people, planet and profit. An individual score for people, planet and profit is

determined on the same universal scale. The basic principle in this scaling phase is to minimize subjectivity

and maximize objectivity, to limit the influence decision in the weighting phase. People in higher ranks of the

Figure 23: The three-pillars of a project

60


organization should make these decisions and not the employee who fills in the decision form. To calculate

this score, several steps are required.

The first step is to select relevant aspects for each P from a list of indicators. Every aspect has an indicator

and corresponding unit. These lists provide a full overview of all possible aspects per P. Aspects that are

normally not thought off, can now be found and taken into account by the valuation of the project. “It is

much easier to recognize redundant objectives when they are explicitly listed than it is to identify missing

objectives” (R. L. Keeney, 1994). It is also easier in use and time-saving for the employee who fills in the

decision-form.

To fully cover each P, each of the lists should again be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE).

For these lists this is ensured by taking into account diverse input from various sources. The sources are

summarized below, more detailed information on these can be found in Appendix V A, B and C.

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for Airport Operators. Over 100 performance indicators in the

categories: environmental, economical, human rights, social, labor practice and decent work.

Guidelines by the United Nations (UN) of Sustainable Development. The Commission on sustainable

development designed a list of indictors to evaluate the progress on sustainability by governments.

The 14 themes have around 50 indicators.

The Sustainable Footprint Methodology. Provides several indicators on people, planet and profit in

the field of project management. This framework is based on the GRI, UN Guidelines, the framework

by Labuschagne and Brent, World Wildlife Fund Principles and Sweden’s Environmental Objectives.

The 17 CR-themes of Schiphol and underlying KPIs. The current themes show the focus for Schiphol

and employees are used to work with them.

This variety in input is combined to derive at a MECE list for people, planet and profit. The 17 CR-themes

from Schiphol are fully covered and recognizable to increase the usefulness of the indicator lists. Table 13

presents the indicators and units for the planet aspects, Table 14 for people and Table 15 for profit. Each

contains a list of indicators with corresponding SMART unit.

Planet Aspects

Select Indicator [Unit]

□ Materials Used - [kg]/[m3] - % input recycled or % recyclable

□ Energy Saved [kwh] Direct vs. Indirect saved energy due to conservation and efficiency improvements

□ Water Used - [Liter] - % input recycled

□ Water Quality - Presence of pollution [NOx] - Amount of O2 [ton]

□ Emissions Total (in)direct greenhouse gas (CO2, NOx, SO) emissions by weight

□ Air Quality Pollutant concentrations in [ppm] according to regulations

□ De-icing Waste De-icing/anti-icing fluid used and treated by m3 and/or tons.

□ Animal Mortality Total annual number of wildlife strikes per 10,000 aircraft movements

□ Sustainable Energy [kwh] sustainable generated energy

□ Buildings Energy label indicator [x]

□ Waste % reuse of waste

□ Soil Within limits on certain elements [ppm]

Table 13: Planet aspects

61


People Aspects


□ Noise - [dB] - [# and % change of people residing in areas affected by noise]

□ Workforce -Total number and rate of new employees due to the project and employee turnover by age group, gender, and region -% men/women - Average working hours

□ Absence Rates of injury, occupational diseases, lost days, and absenteeism, and total number of work-related fatalities, by region and by gender.

□ Displacement Number of persons physically or economically displaced, either voluntarily or involuntarily, by the airport operator or on its behalf by a governmental or other entity

□ Suppliers - Screened on human rights/sustainability reputation - % and # of suppliers analyzed for risks related to corruption

□ Quality of life at Schiphol

- Passenger convenience: mark in Meyer monitor [mark] - Employee convenience: mark in Airport monitor [mark]

□ Communication inform the stakeholders about the sustainability aspects of the project [# meetings]

□ Airport Safety - Total runway incursions - Total accidents at airport area

□ Commuter Traffic - Car km employees - Car km passengers - % work-home with car

□ Reputation [mark] given by stakeholders to Schiphol for CR policy

□ Acceptance % of people involved in CR, awareness indicator

Table 14: People aspects

Profit Aspects


□ People savings - Workforce performance/ productivity improvement [€] - Reputation [€]

□ Planet savings - Energy [kWh/€] - Waste [kton/€] - Water [L/€]

□ CAPEX -[€] -[€/year]

□ OPEX -[€] -[€/year]

□ Profit -[€] -[€/year]

□ Compliance with laws/regulations

-amount of fine [€] -subsidy [€]

□ NPV [value]

□ Market share [%] of European market in cargo and passengers

□ Pricing - [€] extra for premium prices - Expenditure per passenger [€/p]

□ ROI [€/year]

□ RONA [€/year]

Table 15: Profit aspects

62


The employee who fills in the decision-form selects every relevant aspect for a specific project, whether it is

a positive or negative effect, and calculates the scores for the aspects with corresponding unit. To calculate

this score, several experts should be consulted for verification of this score. To make the scores between the

different aspects comparable, they need to be converted to the same scale. Each aspect scores on the

contribution to or effect on a strategic objective by determining the impact a project-aspect has on this

strategic objective. The scores of this impact are on a (qualitative) 9-point scale ranging from increase to

decrease, see Table 17.

Table 16: Scale

These qualitative values correspond with the numerical values -4 to +4, which are linked to conditions or

ranges. So for example, if the CO2-emissions are reduced by 3 tons it corresponds with a strong (value 3)

increase of the strategic objective to be CO2-neutral in 2012. This because the value ‘strong’ stands for a

range of 10-20% improvement compared to the current emissions. If the project leads to 3 tons more CO2-

emissions, it has a strong decrease to the strategic objective to be CO2-neutral because it falls in the range

10-20% more compared to the current situation.

So, each aspect is linked to a strategic objective which has a range that corresponds with values on the 9-

point scale. Which ranges correspond with which value on the scale is determined by in-house experts in the

specific field related to the strategic objective. To take the example of the strategic objective to be CO2-

neutral in 2012 again, this can imply that a reduction of 0 tons = 0 % improvement = value 0, 1 ton = 0-5%

improvement = value 1, 2 tons = 5-10% improvement = value 2, 3 tons = 10-20% improvement = value 3, etc.

The strategic objective to be CO2 neutral is a real goal, but the values are fictitious and used to clarify the

example. So the expert links the strategic objectives of Schiphol to the defined aspects per P, and determines

which value of the aspect corresponds falls in which range of contribution to the strategic objective in terms

of percentages.

The scores for the selected aspects are filled in on the decision-form after which it is checked by the

controllers and distributed to the Investment Committee (IC). They are now able to compare the different

aspects per P on the same scale. This process of scaling towards strategic objectives enforces that projects

are better in line with the business strategy. An overview is given in Figure 24.

Decrease Increase

Extreme Strong Moderate Low None Low Moderate Strong Extreme

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

63


Figure 24: Scaling phase

8.3.2 Weighting People, Planet and Profit The second phase in the decision-making process is the weighting of people, planet and profit by the

Investment Committee (IC). They have the filled in the decision-form representing the score of the different

aspects per P in relation to the strategic impact. This is the basis for the weighting process. The focus is on

taking a decision based on multiple criteria, whereby discussion plays an important role.

The first step is to derive the aspects per P to a maximum of five, if this is not already the case. This

limitation stimulates that only the key aspects are taken into account for a project. The amount of five is still

doubtful, since it still does not really show the ‘key’ aspects. But it stimulates that the IC should think about

an order in the importance or contribution of the aspects. “Normally only 2 or maximum 3 aspects are the

reason why a project is done or are the real influential aspects of the project” (van Daal, 2009).

The second step is to assign weights to these aspects, whereby there is a fixed percentage per people, planet

or profit. So, a sum of 100% will be divided between the 3 P’s. Thereafter this ascribed percentage is divided

between the various aspects per P. This is done to assign quantitative values to the order of aspects

considering the importance or relevance to the project. The framework expressly does not set the values for

percentages at these two moments, to stimulate the discussion in the IC. Thereby it increases the awareness

on the balance between PPP, which leaves room for changes in the division of percentage if unexpected

events occur, like the financial crisis.

So for example: when 3 aspects are in the planet pillar, which is ascribed with 25%, this 25% should be

divided between the 3 planet aspects. For example the division 12%, 5% and 8% can be determined since

aspect 1 is the aspect that is most affected by the project. These aspects follow from the selection of

relevant aspects in the scaling phase. An example is given in Table 17. So the IC has to weight by dividing

percentages two times: between PPP and between aspects per P. They fill in these percentages in a fixed

spreadsheet in Excel. Then for simplicity and accessibility reasons, the output will be a short but powerful

64


overview, see Table 18. It is easy to see whether the score on people, planet or profit individually is positive

or not and what the share in the total project score is.

Table 17: Example weighting PPP aspects

Table 18: Powerful overview output

Based on these total scores for a project, the IC is more able to make a decision. The total score can vary

again on the 9-point scale, so from -4 to +4. A positive score implies that the project contributes positively to

the strategic objectives and underlying PPP-aspects. The results of the framework are not binding, but give

an indication of the effects of people, planet and profit aspects of a project on the strategic objectives of

Schiphol. It is valuable input for the discussion within the IC about if and which project gets a go or a no go.

Thereby it is applicable to reveal the difference between

projects in a project portfolio of a department (project 1

vs. project 2) but also between different variants of a

project (project 1A vs. project 1B).

Taking a closer look at the example in tables 18 and 19,

the totals of project 1A and 1B are input for discussion.

Project 1A has the highest total score, caused by the

score on profit. But this does not necessarily mean that

the decision should be to invest in this project although

people and planet are also positive. Another line of

reasoning is that the IC should invest in project 1B, since

the score on people and planet together is higher

compared to project 1A (1.57 vs. 1.07) and project 1B is

still profitable.

Project 1A Project 1B

Weighting Division Score (Div*Sco) Score (Div*Sco)

Aspect 1 12% 3 0.36 2 0.24

Planet 25% Aspect 2 5% -1 -0.05 0 0

Aspect 3 8% 2 0.16 1 0.08

Sum 0.47 0.32

People 25% Aspect 1 20% 1 0.2 3 0.6

Aspect 2 5% 2 0.1 -1 -0.05

Sum 0.3 0.55

Aspect 1 20% 2 0.4 -1 -0.2

Profit 50% Aspect 2 20% 1 0.2 2 0.4

Aspect 3 10% 2 0.2 0 0

Sum 0.8 0.2

Total Sum 100% 100% 1.57 1.07

Weight Project 1A Project 1B

Planet 25% 0.47 0.32

People 25% 0.3 0.55

Profit 50% 0.8 0.2

Total 100% 1.57 1.07

Figure 25: Validation & control tool

65


To give the IC something to hold on to, certain conditions or requirements can be set to the outcomes of the

framework. For instance, the profit aspect always needs a positive score or the weighted average should

always be positive. This can support the IC in defining their perspective, since they can opt for an equal

weight per P (33.3%) and maintain their emphasis on the profit by setting a minimum value of +1 to profit.

But these requirements are not fixed and can be applied to the framework in line with the preferences of

Schiphol.

Next to the options go or no go, this framework provides the opportunity for a third option: redecision.

Based on the output totals per aspect, adjustments or improvements can be made to the projects to

improve the effects of the project. Afterwards, the readjusted projects can pass through the scaling and

weighting process again.

Besides the application of the framework in the decision-making process, it can also be used for evaluating

the projects after they are realized. The evaluation is supported by plotting a project on a 3-dimensional

graph, containing the axes people, planet and profit. This sets the opportunity for the application of the

framework in both the plan and check phase of the PDCA-cycle by Demming.

This benchmarking of projects in a plot provides feedback to the framework in the scaling and weighting

phase. For the scaling phase it is valuable information to check if the decided ranges for awarding the

qualitative scores are estimated correctly. If no project gets a positive score or all projects get a negative

score, these ranges should be adjusted to improve the applicability of the framework. For the weighting

phase it provides also valuable information as feedback to the IC. They can see the effect of their weighting

choice and can adjust their perspective based on that, which is stimulated by plotting the scores on people,

planet and profit per project. It validates the chosen perspective; for instance if the IC says that each P is

equally important while all projects are scoring high along the profit axis, there is a difference in saying and

doing. But this plot makes it visible so that the IC can adjust their behavior and perspectives. It directly

controls the IC and validates the chosen perspectives.

Next to the stated applications of the framework, it is also applicable in portfolio analysis. It can map and

analyze the project portfolio of a certain department and helps them to make sure investments have a

balance between the 3 P’s. This also accounts for the organization as a whole, which can for example

compare the departments with each other to find an underperforming department on planet. Based on the

results of this portfolio analysis, the weightings for the IC can be adjusted along preferences.

8.4 Verification and Validation of ‘The Balanced Framework’ Verification is checking the correctness and testing the framework. From a theoretical perspective the

framework is verified by meeting the theoretical literature and including the theories of Keeney, Raiffa and

other scientific experts in the field of policy analysis. Reviews from personnel at Schiphol verify the

theoretical correctness of the framework. Besides that, the framework secures the requirements that were

set. Transparency is increased due the openness of the framework and the traceability of decisions and

valuation of projects. The structure of the process and step-by-step tasks reduce complexity and increase the

simplicity of the framework. Evaluation is accommodated by the PPP-plot and there is room for

improvements and adjustments according to lessons learned and gained experience. This makes the

framework accessible in the beginning and leaves room for increasing complexity in the future.

Validation of the framework is also mainly dependent on the practical use of the framework. Interviews with

persons at Schiphol showed that the framework has high potential and is conform to their needs and

requirements. It meets the goal of creating more awareness on the balance between people, planet and

profit in the decision-making process. There is more discussion in the weighting phase and the framework

66


forces the IC to at least discuss the effects of people, planet and profit. But still, the main ‘childhood

diseases’ will be found when the framework is actually used and therefore the practical verification and

validation is currently limited.

8.5 Implementation of ‘The Balanced Framework’ After the verification and validation of the ‘The Balanced Framework’, it is ready to be implemented in the

practice at Schiphol. An important part of the validation and verification will be done or can be done during

the use of the framework in practice. The framework is positioned as a basic foundation, which leaves room

for adjustment and fine-tuning after gained experiences by using the framework, in line with the flexibility

requirement. Since acceptance is another success factor in the implementation of the framework, it was first

introduced by persons in the organization who understood the current problematic and need for increased

awareness on balancing CR in the decision-making process. The Q-method made it possible to identify those

persons who were also in favor of guidelines in this process.

As soon as the senior managers on CR and internal audit were in favor of this approach it was introduced to

controllers. They play a key role in determining the guidelines for the decision-forms and the scaling phase of

the process. They approved to validate this framework by using the rearrangement of Lounge 2 as a pilot-

project for ‘The Balanced Framework’. This lounge at the terminal needs to be renovated and is in the phase

where different alternatives are weighted up. Currently, the first phase of the framework, the scaling of the

project on PPP, is started together with the project manager and the project team. So first the relevant

aspects per people, planet and profit were selected. Currently, the values of the selected aspects in the

correct units are defined by consulting diverse in-house experts, as well as the effects the project will have

on these aspects. Then it is possible to define the strategic impact on the 9-point scale, fill in the decision-

form and submit it to the IC.

8.5.1 The Road Ahead As addressed in the pilot-project Lounge 2, the first step before the framework can be fully operational in all

departments at Schiphol is that experts need to determine the ranges to convert the quantitative scores in

percentages to a score on the 9-point strategic impact scale. The application of the framework in pilot-

projects, like Lounge 2, is an important milestone and will provide lessons learned and feedback to the

experts what helps by determining the range and values.

But like other tools and frameworks, the road to success is still long and uncertain. But for now it is key to

“take a dive in the deep and learn swimming while at it”. Using the framework is essential, the acceptance

should increase and people should be willing to stand for and defend the framework. Only then the use of

the framework will spread and gain more acceptance. But from the start it should be clear that it is

supported by the board and that it supports the new strategy of the firm, which can be decided on a very

short term. Based on the Q-methodology results, employees expect and want inspiration and dedication

from the top. Then the employees will understand the need and broader context of the framework. It is still

not about the framework, but about a change towards a more CR business culture. Since the consensus is on

continuation of CR and a more prominent role than current situation, the long-term prospects for the

success of the framework are positive. As indication, the framework can be implemented in the business

culture within 1 year after successful results and feedback from pilot-projects.

An important aspect is to monitor the transparency, which is important to balance according to the culture

of the organization. Transparency can be a danger due to the increased traceability; people are unlikely to

want insight in their decisions. But this framework introduces a certain amount of insight on the argument

that openness is required for benefits of the organization. It is important to monitor this implementation on

the transparency to avoid conflicts in organizational culture and personal interests.

67


8.5.2 Potential Barriers for ‘The Balanced Framework’ The current IC is chaired by the CFO. This can be a limitation to the weighting phase of the process, since the

aim of the CFO is always profit-based. Bringing more discussion in the process by the framework stimulates

that the CFO should always justify his final choices. An opportunity arises for the coming year, since there

will be a new CFO. The chair of the IC should change to another person (the new CR-man) or the new CFO

should adopt the new framework and make better balanced decisions.

Since the framework is new within Schiphol, the benchmark is limited. In the beginning the scaling and

weighting will cost more time, but by gaining experience this decreases fast. If the benchmark of projects

increases, it will be easier to scale and compare projects which will benefit the efficiency of the framework.

The application of ‘The Balanced Framework’ in the project planning of Lounge 2 confirms this.

Furthermore, the use of Lounge 2 in the framework showed that the lists of indicators per P are right and

complete. All relevant indicators that Schiphol identified for Lounge 2 were present in the framework. Even

indicators that were not thought off came to light and so stimulated the CR awareness. This completeness

validates the correctness and completeness of the framework and shows that it has high potential to

become fully used throughout the whole organization. The biggest barrier in the application was to define

the values for the indicators. Due to the lack of benchmark and the first use, it was hard to gather this data

since it was hard to identify the expert who has the data. I was referred to other persons all the time, but in

the end was able to determine the value for the selected indicators. In further applications, a list of experts

(creating a benchmark) should be made to increase the efficiency of using the framework. Currently these

indicators are linked to corresponding strategic objectives to determine the value of strategic impact the

project has. Important hereby is that the values per indicator require a distinction between current situation,

during reconstruction and future situation to define the contributions in percentages.

68


Conclusion Phase 2 In this chapter ‘The Balanced Framework’ is presented to improve the decision-making process at Schiphol,

since there is no balance between people, planet and profit in this process. So Schiphol’s goal was to create a

framework that was able to make a balanced and general valuation of people, planet and profit in decisions

whether or not to invest in projects. Besides the research goal for this phase was to let all employees at all

levels in the organization make a conscious decision on CR to balance people, planet and profit. Therefore

the answer to the sub-question, which framework is suitable to help balance the people, planet and profit in

the decision-making process?, is ‘The Balanced Framework’ since it fulfills these goals and is most suitable to

the practice at Schiphol.

It is important to incorporate people and planet within the profit measurement systems, to obtain the

efficiency of using only one system. Even more important is that it gives insight in the contribution of people

and planet to the profit of a project, so the CR-benefits are revealed and become more tangible and

understandable. The literature review of scorecards, investment tools and other frameworks showed that

these tools were not applicable to the Schiphol situation since they were not able to reach the goal of a

general and balanced valuation of PPP. Therefore, they served as input and inspiration for new designed ‘The

Balanced Framework’. The negative aspects of the treated input tools are avoided by taking into account the

lessons learned of those tools, which also revealed the positive aspects. Together with interviews with future

users and in-house experts this led to the definition of the main requirements: transparency, simplicity,

flexibility and accessibility.

‘The Balanced Framework’ is able to meet all requirements and conditions. It is transparent by giving more

insight in the valuation of a decision, but not too much by still making a distinction of tasks and responsibility

between the scaling and weighting phase. It is simple in use and can be accessed directly; given the current

application to pilot-project Lounge 2. Furthermore, the framework is able to incorporate lessons learned

during use and can be adjusted towards preferences of the user. ‘The Balanced Framework’ is verified with

Schiphol employees and the literature on decision-making processes and MCDA. The validation through

pilot-project Lounge 2 is still in progress, but the first feedback was merely positive.

The use of ‘The Balanced Framework’ will give ‘hand and feet’ to the forthcoming business strategy which

incorporates CR. The actual insight in the contribution of CR and the benefits that are related to this,

stimulate the CR culture within Schiphol and in the end brings Schiphol one step further in becoming

Europe’s preferred airport

Recommendations & Implications Phase 2 The first and logical recommendation to Schiphol is to start using ‘The Balanced Framework’ since it meets

the goals, requirements and conditions of Schiphol. To smoothen the implementation and use of the

framework, the following recommendations and implications are given:

1) Create a high level of acceptance for the framework. Employees need to understand and be convinced of

the added value of the framework before they are willing to put effort in it. If there is a group of

proponents, pilot-projects are required to show that the framework really works and meets the goals set

by Schiphol. This is currently done with pilot-project Lounge 2. During and after this project, more pilot-

projects and proponents should spread the enthusiasm and use of the framework throughout the

organization like the snowball-effect to increase the level of acceptance.

69

Recommendations & Implications Phase 2

Another more rigorous measure is to oblige the use of the framework in guidelines for the decision-making

process. Although the Q-method showed the need for guidelines among the perspectives, it is not

recommended because its obligations cause resistance. First the framework needs to prove itself and gain

acceptance in the organization. So when recommendation 1 is far enough in progress, it can be

recommended to:

2) Set guidelines to the decision-making process that first stimulates and later obliges the use of the

framework. Stimulation can be reached when the Board recommends the use of the framework and

together with positive feedback of several pilot-projects it will be obliged to use the framework. But not

before the framework is proven and gained acceptance.

An implication of the use of the framework in pilot-projects is that experts need to be consulted to define

the ranges to convert the quantitative scores in percentages to a score on the 9-point strategic impact scale.

Therefore, it is recommended that parallel to creating a high level of acceptance with the condition that

there of course should be a minimum level of acceptance before the experts are willing to define these

values.

3) Let experts define the values per aspect in the scaling phase. Thereby it is recommended to use internal

experts, since they have the required specific knowledge. External experts can be used to verify the

values that are defined by the internal experts, like what happens with the CR KPIs in the annual report

by PWC experts. After this is done more often in pilot-projects, the applicability and ease of use in all

levels of the organization increases.

In the weighting phase, the IC assigns percentage to PPP and the aspects per P. Hereby it is recommended

to:

4) The IC should choose the percentages for people, planet and profit for a certain period of time. This

creates consistency in the framework and in the way of working for the IC. A constant change of this

percentage undermines the trust in the framework by employees, because it comes across as unfairness

or manipulation of the decision by the IC. But it should be possible to adjust these percentages to

uncertain events, like a financial crisis, which is secured by a change after a certain period of time. It is

recommended to evaluate the chosen set of percentages yearly and adjust them if necessary. The PPP-

plot can assist in this evaluation by checking if the executed projects are in line with the chosen set of

percentages for PPP and the overall strategy of Schiphol.

70


Figure 26: overview phase 2

71

Phase 3 - The CR Reputation among Transfer Passengers

Phase 3 - The CR Reputation

among Transfer Passengers

The third and last phase of this research focuses on the CR reputation among transfer passengers. Since

there is a blurred view on the CR reputation and its expectations, Schiphol wants to know what the value is

of a CR reputation. From the chapter on the CR theory it is known that a firm’s CR reputation has benefits for

the firm on all terms (short, medium, long), has impact on all stakeholders and affects people, planet and

profit aspects. Therefore this phase investigates the influence of a CR reputation among transfer passengers

by using a stated-choice experiment as conjoint analysis. Based on the results, specific implications for

Schiphol can be made.

“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”

Warren Buffet (1951- …), American Investor

72


9. The CR Reputation and the Transfer Passenger Since Schiphol is an operator, passengers are not directly their clients. For the business area aviation the

airlines are the client and for consumers it is the retailers who operate shops/services at the airport.

Although passengers are not the main clients of Schiphol, the important performance numbers in the annual

reports show the amount of passengers passing through Schiphol per year. Therefore, Schiphol will benefit

from more passengers. This is not only because the main numbers in the annual report will rise, but also the

direct clients of Schiphol and Schiphol itself will benefit from more passengers. More passengers will result in

more flights, more turnover from shops, more parking income, more hotel bookings, etc. In short, the

amount of passengers plays an important role for the whole supply chain at Schiphol, the Schiphol area and

even the Dutch economy.

Another point in the relation between CR reputation and performance is that a negative reputation has a

strong negative influence on the performance of a firm (Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2005; Sen & Bhattacharya,

2004). “Consumers expect firms to be involved in social initiatives and may reward them for their efforts

through purchase behavior” (Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2005). The media is more attracted to negative points and

scandals and therefore it plays a bigger role in the perceptions of clients of that firm. They can adjust their

consumptive behavior and start boycotting the firm, since a firm’s economic benefits from CR are

represented in its link to consumers positive product and brand evaluations, brand choice and brand

recommendations (Bhattacharya, 2008; Klein & Dawar, 2004). Therefore, in phase 1 it is stated that the

negative impact is significantly bigger than the positive impact of having a good reputation. A good or

positive CR reputation can influence the perception of the client the other way around, which can result in

trust and loyalty to the firm in their consumptive behavior.

The question for Schiphol is to identify what the relation or impact is from a CR reputation on the amount of

passengers. To investigate this relation, the focus in this research will be on the transfer passengers. They

represent a 40% share of the total amount of passengers (Schiphol Group, 2012b) and they have the option

to choose between different airports when booking their flight. For the normal O-D (origin-destination)

passenger, Schiphol almost has a monopoly which reduces the choice for the O-D passenger considerably.

One of the statements in the Q-methodology was: transfer passengers choose Schiphol for its CR reputation

(nr. 41). Results show that the perspective at Schiphol is that transfer passengers do not take CR reputation

in account when choosing a flight, given the negative scores for all four factors (-4/-4/-1/-5). But given the

impact of a CR reputation on the business performance, it is interesting to research the impact of the CR

reputation in the choice for an airport by transfer passengers. Conjoint analysis is a suitable method to

investigate this relation. The theory in this method can be found in paragraph 9.1, after which the

experiment will be set up in paragraph 9.2. The results of the study are presented in paragraph 9.3, verified

in paragraph 9.4 and discussed in paragraph 9.5.

9.1 Literature on Conjoint Analysis Conjoint analysis is an often used approach for measuring customer preferences in marketing research

(Green, Krieger, & Wind, 2001; Henscher, Rose, & Greene, 2005; Louviere, Henscher, & Swait, 2000). “It is a

methodology in which respondents value different alternatives or profiles by making implicit trade-offs, from

which their preferences are obtained” (Green, et al., 2001). There are several methods to measure this

choice: revealed preferences, rating-based stated preference or choice-based stated preference. In this

research the last one, choice-based stated preference or stated-choice model will be used. “Stated-choice

models offer an approach to investigate, estimate and predict the behavior of potential and actual

73

Phase 3 – Chapter 9. The CR Reputation and the Transfer Passenger

ij

participants in a controlled experimental framework to proposed or uncertain changes in attributes of goods

or services in an existing or hypothetical situation” (Louviere, et al., 2000).The principle is to derive a utility

function from this choice between hypothetical profiles (alternatives) whereby the starting point is that

choosing provides a better reflection of behavior on the (transportation) market. In daily life, people choose

daily which increases the realism of this method.

Based on these choices between alternatives, the utility functions can be estimated. They indicate to what

extent each attribute contributes to the utility. This foundation on random utility theory allows a rigorous

modeling framework (Porras & Hope, 2005). In this research the multinomial logit model (MNL) will be used

as framework to model choices. An MNL model is the most popular modeling framework choice for the great

majority of practitioners for convincing reasons: simplicity in use and estimation, speed of delivering good or

acceptable models (goodness of fit, t-statistics) and the model is often very robust in terms of prediction

accuracy to violation of the very strong behavioral assumptions imposed on the profile of the unobserved

effects, namely that they are independently and identically distributed (IID) among the alternatives in the

choice set (Louviere, et al., 2000).

Before the theory can be applied to the influence of a CR reputation on the choice of airports by transfer

passengers, some assumptions should be made. First, people distinguish characteristics on alternatives =

attributes. Second, every attribute has different values = attribute level. Third, each person derives a certain

(part worth) utility to every attribute level. Fourth, the sum of these utilities combined is the total utility for

an alternative. Fifth, one chooses the alternative which one derives the highest utility.

With these assumptions in mind, the MNL model uses the following formula to predict the chance of choice

for a certain alternative:

Whereby: – pij = chance that individual i chooses alternative j

– Vij = structural utility that individual i derives from alternative j

– Si = choice set of m alternatives of individual i

– e = base constant of the natural logarithms (±2.72)

So the chance that an alternative is chosen is proportional to the utility of that alternative with respect to

the sum of the exponents of the utilities of all alternatives in the choice set.

This formula shows the ‘part worth utility’, with β= coefficient (weight), X = attribute

value, i = individual, j = alternative and k = attribute.

Then the structural utility of an alternative is the sum of the part worth utilities of an

alternative, represented in the second formula on the left.

Then the total utility (Uij) is the structural utility plus a random utility component

, to catch everything that could not be explained by the model.

Besides the utilities for an alternative, the willingness to pay is also an output of stated-choice models (Bos &

van Wee, 2005; Hess & Polak, 2005; L. Keeney & Raiffa, 1976; MacKerron, et al., 2009). When one attribute

has an economical unit, euro for instance, it can be converted to utility points. Other (qualitative) attributes

can also be converted to this utility scale and be comparable with the economical attribute. Then the

willingness to pay for a certain level of attribute can be calculated.

k

ijkij VV

ijkkijk XV

ijijij VU

74


9.2 Setting up the Experiment Now that the theory is explained, it is time to apply it to the practice by setting up the experiment. The

situation is as explained in the introduction of this chapter: the impact of the CR reputation on the airport-

choice by transfer passengers. The experiment will represent a fictitious flight from airport A to airport B

with a transfer at airport C1 or airport C2, see Figure 26. The choice for a fictitious flight and fictitious

airports takes away the possibility of having preferences for airports and airlines. If it was a real flight with

real airports, people can have a preference or perspective for an airport which influences their choosing

behavior. For example, passengers can prefer Heathrow because of the amount of destinations (positive) or

the chaotic transfers between terminals (negative).

Figure 27: The fictitious flight

The most important part in setting up the experiment is the construction of a choice-set. Before the

alternatives can be placed in this set, the attributes and attribute levels need to be determined (paragraph

9.2.1). Next, the alternatives can be constructed by using basic plans and effect-coding in paragraph 9.2.2

after which the design of the questionnaire and characteristics of the response group are presented in

paragraph 9.2.3.

9.2.1 Defining the Attributes and Attribute Levels To define the attributes and their levels, a combination of literature on airport choice and practical data by

Schiphol are used. The first assumption is that the influence of the airlines is out of scope of this research. In

reality they have certain influence, but the research is not about the choice for airlines. However, airlines

and airports are closely related since some airlines fly only from certain airports and also to certain locations.

For example, Ryan Air does not fly from and to Schiphol. But the choice for an airport can also influence your

choice for an airline. If you choose to fly from, to or transfer at Schiphol you have a big chance of flying Air

France-KLM or one of the other SkyTeam Alliance partners since Schiphol is the main-hub of KLM. In short,

consumers do not separately choose an airline and an airport but rather choose among airline–airport

substitutes (Ishii & Van Dender, 2009) and travelers choose the departure airport and airline sequentially

(first airport, then airline) (Pels, Nijkamp, & Rietveld, 1998). As a result of this, attributes linked to the

airlines are considered to be out of scope and neutral. So attributes like flight frequency, leg room, seat

width, quality of catering, etc. are excluded in this experiment. In reality, flight frequency is found to be an

important aspect (Harvey, 1987; Hess & Polak, 2005; Ishii & Van Dender, 2009). Since this research only

focuses on transfer passengers, attributes belonging to O-D passengers are also out of scope. So, the

attributes parking fees and travel time to the airport are therefore excluded.

What is left are the attributes to include in the research. Every quarter, Schiphol conducts research on the

motives for choosing Schiphol among over 2500 transfer passengers, called the ‘Kwaliteitsmonitor’ (Schiphol

Group, 2012b). This only includes passengers who make the choice themselves and so excludes choices

made by travel agencies or companies (for business travelers). The results of the latest researches are shown

in Figure 28. What is striking is the high percentage of fastest transfer. Relevant attributes, which fall inside

the scope of this research, are thus: fastest transfer, attractive ticket price, airport quality and tax free

75


shopping. Due to the low impact of tax free shopping and the overlap with airport quality (tax free shopping

is part of an airport quality in my opinion) it is no longer considered to be an attribute for this research.

Figure 28: Motives for a transfer at Schiphol (Schiphol Group, 2009)

Schiphol also noticed the absence of sustainability in its research, while it increased in importance among

consumers and Schiphol as organization itself. Therefore, in 2009 GfK Research conducted a research on the

sustainability of Schiphol and the question about the motive for choosing an airport of departure, so no

transfer, was included and provides interesting results (see Figure 29) (GfK Custom Research, 2009).

Sustainability ranks after the important aspects as ticket price, time and airport quality but ahead of parking

fees, facilities and walking distances.

Based on the literature and data from researches, the attributes for the stated-choice experiment can be

defined. The first attribute is ticket price in euro, it ranks high in many researches and should be included

because of the monetary unit. Second is the transfer time in hours. The access time to the airport is

frequently named for O-D passengers, which corresponds with the transfer time for transfer passengers and

is the most important aspect in Figure 28. Third is the airport quality, which is of importance because

transfer passengers have to spend time at the airport. Fourth and last: the CR reputation of an airport, which

is the main reason for this experiment and attribute for investigation.

For the experiment only these four attributes are defined to keep the experiment small, understandable and

not too long for the respondents. Furthermore, these are the four attributes with the highest expected

impact on the airport-choice by transfer passengers. For the same practical reasons, the levels per attribute

are limited to three.

1%

3%

1%

14%

27%

11%

43%

1%

2%

6%

21%

21%

18%

30%

1%

3%

14%

15%

14%

17%

41%

1%

4%

15%

18%

13%

27%

34%

1%

5%

14%

14%

11%

23%

41%

0%

3%

12%

12%

15%

21%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

tax free shopping

flight frequency

airport quality

airline preference

no choice / onlyoption

attractive ticket price

fastest transfer

2010 2005 2003 2000 1995 1988

76


Figure 29: Aspects in choosing airport of departure (GfK Custom Research, 2009)

Since the experiment represents a fictitious flight, the attribute levels are also fictitious but approach reality.

Starting point was more or less a flight to New York from Oslo, with the possibility to transfer at London

Heathrow, Schiphol, Frankfurt or Paris Charles de Gaulle. The ticket price is set at 500, 600 or 700 euro and

the transfer time has the attributes 1 hour, 2 hours or 3 hours. These quantitative units are self-explanatory

and logic. The airport quality and CR reputation on the other hand, are qualitative and more difficult to

measure. For both airport quality and CR reputation the attribute levels are poor, average and excellent. In

my opinion this is the best way to express those attributes. Rankings (i.e. top 10, 20 or 50) as a more

quantitative unit were considered, but they have a big space for interpretation (how many companies were

ranked, who did the research, etc.).

9.2.2 Defining the Choice-set By having 4 attributes with 3 levels, the full factorial design already has 3^4=81 profiles (=alternatives).

Therefore a basic plan, see Appendix VI A, is used to come up with an orthogonal fractional design which has

only 9 al and is the most efficient estimate of the model. Therefore, the assumption was made that the

interaction-effects are equal to zero. This reduction in profiles is possible, since the profiles after applying

basic plans are still orthogonal and balanced. Since the basic plan indicates the attribute levels with a 0, 1 or

2, the original attributes are transformed to these values by using effect-coding (for scheme see Appendix VI

B). The results of the application of this scheme to this experiment are also presented in Appendix VI B. The

9 acquired profiles are now ready to place in the choice-set with also 9 choices. Every choice consists of

determining the highest utility between two profiles. These profiles are placed in the choice set by randomly

drawing profiles from two urns, each filled with the 9 profiles. To limit the chance on correlations between

attributes of different profiles, this random drawing is performed three times. After that the profiles are

checked on dominance to derive at the final choice-set that was used in the survey, see Appendix VI C.

Besides these 9 choices, two extra choices are added to the survey. These so called ‘ hold-out’ choices

consists of one new designed ‘hold-out’ profiles versus a random chosen profile out of the 9 existing profiles.

These two extra hold-out sets are used to estimate the utility function and estimates of the model, but to

validate the performance of the model. The chance of choosing for a hold-out profile obtained from the

results of the analysis can be compared with the actual observed choice percentage from the survey. If these

77


chances match, the better the model is in estimating choice chances. This validates the quality of the model

and increases trust in the results.

9.2.3 The Survey and the Response-group Besides asking the transfer passengers to fill in their choice for the preferred alternative, some general

questions are asked to gather background information about the response-group and the questionnaire

itself. The response-group needs to be in line with the population of transfer passengers at an airport. To

make sure that the response-group represents the population, a random selection rule of asking 1 out of the

8 passing or sitting passengers to fill in the questionnaire has been applied.

An important characteristic of passengers to distinguish for is the distinction between business and leisure

passengers. “The way passengers trade off the airline and airport attributes depends on whether they travel

for business or leisure purposes” (Ishii & Van Dender, 2009). The business traveler might attach more value

to transfer time and airport quality, since the firm is paying for his ticket. So to get balanced results, it is

important that the division of business vs. leisure transfer passengers in the response-group comes close to

the population. Based on research at Schiphol this is about 40% business and 60% leisure (Schiphol Group,

2012b). In order to check this characteristic, one background asks about the purpose of travelling. Other

questions asked relate to the age and gender of the passengers and if he or she is really a transfer passenger.

Besides this, there is also a question that addresses the role of sustainability in normal life decisions. This

makes it possible to measure the amount of sustainable persons in the response-group, since this can

influence their choice. “29% of the people who say that they’re sustainable, prefer sustainability above long

queuing time” (GfK Custom Research, 2009). Sustainability is hereby defined as the livability of the planet

and availability of its resources for future generations. Passengers can answer on a five-point scale from

strongly agree to strongly disagree. At the end of the survey, passengers are asked to answer three

questions on the same scale about the clearness of the questions, the correspondence with reality and the

difficulty to choose between different alternatives. Those answers are used to validate the questionnaire.

The survey was conducted in March 2012 among transfer passengers at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

The response-group consists of a total amount of 53 passengers (n=53). This meets the requirement of min.

30 people per segment. Of these 53 passengers, 49 (=93%) passengers were actually transfer passengers.

The other 4 people answered no on the question: are you connecting flights? Furthermore, 38% were female

and 62% male. The respondents were on average 37 years old (year of birth 1975), the eldest person was 70

years old and the youngest 22. The business travelers were well presented with (43%) against leisure (45%)

and other (12%). The division approximates the division of 40% business and 60% leisure of the 2009

research, when the smaller percentage of leisure can be explained by the 12% in the other category. This

was not present in the 2009 research and thus the other category had chosen leisure. Furthermore, the

response-group slightly agrees (36%) with the statement that sustainability plays a role in normal-life

decisions. Nobody strongly disagrees, while 10% slightly disagrees, 32% is neutral, 21% strongly agrees with

the statement and 1% has no opinion. This indicates that sustainability plays besides the awareness more

and more a role in the decisions people take in normal-life. All in all, the response-group is quite

heterogeneous and shows no abnormal characteristics of what you should expect based on the population.

9.3 Results of the Stated-Choice Experiment The answers to the questionnaire were inserted in the software program ‘Biogeme’ version 1.8. This

program requires a ‘.dat’ (data) and ‘.mod’ (model) file, which are specified in Appendix VI D. The MNL

model estimates the values of the estimators, which corresponds with the effect code. So for instance, TP1

corresponds with beta 1. The ρ2 (rho-square) of this MNL model is 0.293, which indicates that the estimated

model fits well.

78


9.3.1 Part Worth Utilities The part worth utilities are calculated based on the formula presented in paragraph 9.1 and highlighted in

the green column of Table 19.

Table 19: Part worth utilities

The constant of this model is 0.01, but is not relevant here since there is no basis-alternative in this

experiment. Only the first estimator of the ticket price, TP1, is significant. When the P-value is 0, the

estimated value for that indicator is significant. All other estimators are not significant (P-value = 1) and

therefore the results are not valid for the whole population, but they do give a direction and indication of

the effects in the population.

The transfer time is the attribute with the most importance and thus impact on the choice for an airport.

This means that roughly 41% of this choice can be accounted to the transfer time. The second attribute is the

ticket price, which accounts for 32% of the choice and airport quality ranks third with 18%. The CR

reputation of an airport is accountable for 9% in the airport-choice by transfer passengers. This is in line with

the expectations and 9% is definitely an amount to take into account.

The plots of the utilities per attribute are presented in Figure 30. The course of the utility line for ticket price

and transfer time is in line with expectation and reality. If the ticket price or transfer time increases, the

utility also decreases. If you have to wait longer or pay more, it is less attractive. Therefore, the line of the

ticket price flattens out, while the steepness of the transfer time increases. The utility of waiting an extra

hour is lower than paying 100 euro extra.

The plot of the airport quality indicates that a poor airport quality has a negative utility on the choice, but

also that there is hardly any difference between an average or excellent airport quality. Apparently this does

not matter for the transfer passenger, while he/she does not want to wait/transfer at an airport with a poor

quality.

Attribute Level BP Code Effect code Estimate value Part worth P-value Range Importance Rank

Ticket price [euro] TP1 TP2 beta1 beta2 utility 3.954 32.39% 2

500 0 1 0 2.07 -0.186 2.07 0

600 1 0 1 -0.186 1

700 2 -1 -1 -1.884

Transfer time [hour] TT1 TT2 beta3 beta4 4.937 40.44% 1

1 hours 0 1 0 2.33 0.277 2.33 1

2 hours 1 0 1 0.277 1

3 hours 2 -1 -1 -2.607

Airport Quality AQ1 AQ2 beta5 beta6 2.224 18.22% 3

Poor 0 1 0 -1.48 0.736 -1.48 1

Average 1 0 1 0.736 1

Excellent 2 -1 -1 0.744

CR Reputation Airport CR1 CR2 beta7 beta8 1.093 8.95% 4

Poor 0 1 0 -0.357 -0.368 -0.357 1

Average 1 0 1 -0.368 1

Excellent 2 -1 -1 0.725

constant 0.01 SUM 12.21

79


Figure 30: Plots of the utility per attribute level

For the CR reputation this effect is the other way around. A poor and average CR reputation has nearly the

same negative utility, but an excellent reputation suddenly shows an increase in the utility. So only if the

airport has an excellent CR reputation, the utility has an effect on the airport-choice.

9.3.2 Willingness to Pay for a CR Reputation Now that the utilities are defined, the willingness to pay can be calculated. The range for the ticket price in

euro is related to the corresponding range in utilities, where after the value for 1 utility point is defined at

€50.58. This is related to the utility range for the CR reputation of 1.09. Then the transfer passenger is willing

to pay € 0.56 for an average CR reputation compared to a poor

reputation, while the willingness to pay for an excellent

reputation instead of an average reputation is € 55.29.

Worthwhile to mention is that this wtp of ±€55 is not part of

or related to the ticket price, since this model does not

estimate the interactions between different attributes. So, it

can be said that in this experiment the transfer passengers are

willing to pay ±€55 extra for an excellent CR reputation.

Table 20: Willingness to pay

Wtp [€]

Ticket price [euro]

€500 - €600 € 114.11

€600 - €700 € 85.89

€500 - €700 € 200.00

Transfer time [hour]

1 hours - 2hours € 103.84

2 hours - 3 hours € 145.88

1 hour - 3 hours € 249.72

Airport Quality

Poor-Average € 112.09

Average-Excellent € 0.40

Poor-Excellent € 112.49

CR Reputation Airport

Poor-Average € 0.56

Average-Excellent € 55.29

Poor-Excellent € 54.73

€ Utility point

200 3.95

50.58 1

80


Furthermore, the transfer passenger is willing to pay almost €250 if the transfer time is reduced from 3

hours to 1 hour and €112 for an increase in airport quality from poor to excellent. Something interesting

occurs by the ticket price: if the ticket price decreases with €100 from €600 to €500, the willingness to pay is

with € 114 more than €100 you should expect. For the decrease from €700 to €600 this is less, namely € 85.

These differences are caused by the fact that a decrease from €600 to €500 is relatively larger than a

decrease from €700 to €600. The wtp reveals and confirms this effect. This difference does not influence the

wtp for the other attributes, since these are based on the overall decrease in ticket price of €200 from to

€700 to €500.

9.4 Verification and Validation of the Conjoint Analysis The model can be verified by looking at the chosen probabilities for the hold-out sets. The % of choice at the

hold-out sets (10 and 11) are compared with the observed choices of the questionnaire in Table 21 below.

The model estimates that 100% of the transfer passengers will choose for alternative C1 (profile 10) in choice

number 10. The observed data shows that only 75% of the respondents make this choice. For choice 11, less

people are also choosing for the preferred alternative estimated by the model (55% vs. 89%). The estimates

are in the good direction, but in reality the preferences for a certain alternative are weaker.

choice C1 C2 p C1 p C2 % C1 % C2

10 10 6 0.75 (40) 0.25 (13) 75% 25%

11 11 7 0.45 (24) 0.55 (29) 45% 55% Table 21: Observed data hold-out sets

The respondents slightly (24%) to strongly (63%) agree with the clearness of the questions. Only 12% was

neutral and disagree answers were not given. This indicates that the questions were asked in the right way

and that most of the respondents were able to provide answers with full awareness on what they are

answering. Furthermore, the majority (43%) of the respondents states that the choices in the questionnaire

represent reality. They slightly agree with this statement, against 28% strongly agreeing, 25% neutral and 4%

slightly disagree. This similarity of the questionnaire with reality validates that this is a suitable method to

research real behavior. At last, the majority (34%) of the respondents slightly agreed that it was hard to

choose between different airports. Followed by the categories neutral (28%) and slightly disagree (21%), the

questionnaire let the respondents seriously think about their behavior and choices. Compared to other

questionnaires, a stated-choice experiment requires more thinking and can therefore be experienced as

more difficult.

9.5 Discussion on the Results of the Study This experiment shows that the CR reputation plays a role in the decision of transfer passengers in choosing

their transfer airport, but there are some limitations which require further research (9.5.1). A reflection on

the current CR reputation of Schiphol is presented in paragraph 9.5.2.

9.5.1 Limitations and Further Research First, the utilities were non-significant all except one. Therefore the results are not valid for the whole

population of transfer passengers. More extensive research with a higher number of respondents is required

to get significant results, which can say something about effects in the population.

Second, the experiment only focuses on transfer passengers but Schiphol has many more stakeholders, who

also give a value to the CR reputation. Conducting this research under more stakeholders will increase the

knowledge about this value and what other stakeholders are willing to pay for it.

81


Third, only four attributes were used in this research. Further research with more attributes will provide a

more complete view on all the aspects that play a role in the decisions for transfer passengers, but also for

more stakeholders to do business with or fly to/from Schiphol.

Fourth, the experiment represented a fictitious flight with unnamed airports. It is possible that for each

individual airport the CR reputation differs given the complexity of the environment the airport finds itself.

An airport has already a negative perception and therefore the effects of a CR reputation are also less.

Another possibility is that the country of the airport has a positive sustainable or green reputation, which has

side-effects on a more positive CR reputation of that airport.

Fifth, the model does not estimate interactions between attributes. It is possible that the transfer passengers

associate the airport quality also with the transfer time or that the wtp for CR reputation is part of the ticket

price. Further research with a model that estimates and investigates the interactions between the attributes

is required.

Sixth, more research is needed on how the wtp of ±€55 can be obtained after Schiphol realizes an excellent

CR reputation. Transfer passengers spend money on a ticket and on consumptions at the airport and since

these are not direct incomes for Schiphol, this wtp should be captured in collaboration with the airlines and

the shop-retailers. Think about obtaining this via higher airport fees to the airlines or higher rent to the shop-

retailers who can ask premium prices for their products to the passengers.

9.5.2 Reflection on the CR Reputation Study Another limitation of this study and often a commonly asked question is, what the current CR reputation of

Schiphol is. An earlier research on the sustainability (so not CR) of Schiphol showed that only 29% of the total

people visiting Schiphol viewed Schiphol as a strong sustainable company (GfK Custom Research, 2009). The

same research states that less than a quarter of the people think Schiphol is active with a sustainable policy

in its business. Also given the file ‘Sustainability Research Aviation’ (Dossier Duurzaam, 2008), the overall

opinion on the CR at Schiphol is not very positive. Together with the experiences and reactions during the

field research, it is stated that the current CR reputation of Schiphol is poor or average, but certainly not

excellent. There is still not enough awareness amongst passengers and therefore, future research should

identify the current state of the CR reputation more precisely.

Therefore the CR reputation is primarily associated with planet-aspects such as energy-use, waste recycling

and water consumption (GfK Custom Research, 2009). People-aspects are more secondary associated and

the sponsoring of charity organizations, like Schiphol does with SOS-Kinderdorpen and UNICEF, are of

tertiary importance. A correct and friendly treatment of the client is an overall condition for the perception

on CR at Schiphol.

82


Conclusion Phase 3 Schiphol has a blurred view on its CR reputation, whereby it is unknown what the effects of having a CR

reputation are. This phase determined the CR reputation of an airport among transfer passengers, by giving

the relative importance of the CR reputation in the choice for a transfer airport and the willingness to pay for

different levels of a CR reputation. Due to this, an answer to the last sub-question, what is Schiphol’s CR

reputation among transfer passengers and what are they willing to pay for it?, can be given.

The CR reputation is defined as: the airport reputation of the airport on CR issues, like balancing people,

planet and profit in its activities/strategy. The transfer passengers chose between different airports of

transfer on a fictitious flight. The most important aspect in this choice was the transfer time (41%), followed

by ticket price (32%), airport quality (18%) and CR reputation (9%). Although CR reputation is the least

important aspect in this experiment, it still accounts for 9% in the decision on a transfer airport by transfer

passengers.

Furthermore, the value of having a CR reputation is determined. Having a poor or average CR reputation as

an airport is not enough to distinguish from other airports and transfer passengers derive no utility from

these levels. However, when having an excellent CR reputation the derived utility strongly increases. In

terms of willingness to pay, having an excellent CR reputation is worth €55.29 per transfer passenger

compared with an average reputation. So, transfer passengers are willing to pay €55.29 for an excellent CR

reputation of their transfer-airport.

Recommendations & Implications Phase 3 It is worthwhile for Schiphol to excel in its CR reputation. Based on the conclusions of the conjoint analysis,

the CR reputation contributes for 9% in the transfer-airport choice by transfer passengers and having an

excellent instead of an average CR reputation is rewarded with €55.29. Given this knowledge, the following

recommendations and implications are of interest for Schiphol:

1) Schiphol should continue to invest in their CR policy and strategy which will affect the CR reputation

in a positive way. The results confirm the theory that a CR reputation pays off and that the

investment will be rewarded. In the increasing competition for the passenger, this is an opportunity

to attract the ‘sustainable’ transfer passenger to Schiphol. Doing so brings Schiphol a step closer in

becoming Europe’s preferred airport.

2) Conduct further research to determine the value of a CR reputation among other stakeholders, to

gather a complete overview of the importance of having a CR reputation and the willingness to pay

among all stakeholders.

3) Investigate how the wtp of ±€55 can be obtained after an excellent CR reputation is obtained in

collaboration with the airlines via airport fees or with the shop-retailers via higher rent or premium

prices for products.

4) Obtain an excellent CR reputation. The current CR reputation of Schiphol is not excellent.

The overall CR reputation is based on the opinions of all Schiphol’s stakeholders but the current CR initiatives

are not visible enough to the stakeholders. There are basically two ways to influence the opinion of these

stakeholders on the CR reputation of Schiphol: experience and communication. The implications for the

experience of a CR reputation are:

5) Focus on the perception of the passenger. Considering that the CR reputation is mainly associated

with planet aspects, focus on these first in the experience of the passenger.

83

Recommendations & Implications Phase 3

6) Make the initiatives more tangible and visible to let the passenger really experience CR. This can be

done with separate recycle bins (I’m ready for recycling), information on products (coffee cups who

say their content is fair-trade), LED-lights, electric transport. These are easy to realize and have a

relatively big impact and are quick wins for Schiphol. Further details on the sustainable experience

can be found in thesis ‘The Green Terminal’ (Breeuwer, 2012).

The communication should therefore also focus on the planet-aspects, which implicates that:

7) Schiphol should become a top-ranked airport or airport operating company in national and

international CR or sustainability rankings. Examples are the international Corporate Responsibility

Index 2012 by research company ‘Business in the community’ (BITC, 2012) and a company analysis of

the Fortune Global 500 firms by magazine Fortune. On a national level the national Sustainable

Image Index by Synergie is an interesting opportunity (Synergie, 2011) as well as a ranking designed

by which combines the well-thought of Skytrax airports-ranking with the use of GRI indicators (Costa

Jordão, 2009). Other options are to apply for certifications such as BREEAM or the LEED Gold

certified airport.

8) More communication by Schiphol itself. As indicated in phase 1, the communication to external

stakeholders should be more transparent, open and interactive. Closely monitoring the CR

performance and publishing results on (social) media increases the perception of an excellent CR

reputation at Schiphol among stakeholders. Schiphol should take an example of the excellent

communication and marketing of KLM, which after flying a small distance on cooking oil lead

everybody to believe that KLM flew solely on cooking oil and gave the impression that KLM was very

corporate responsible. More attention to CR-issues should be given on the Schiphol App, website,

Twitter or Facebook-page of Schiphol, which are social media channels to transfer CR related

information and knowledge to society.

84


10. Overall Conclusions, Recommendations & Implications The three phases of the research bring structure in to the problem-solving process by breaking the problem

down into several issues. Each phase addresses and solves a problem faced by Schiphol in an optimal way by

using different methodologies. Moreover, the phases logically follow one after the other and complement to

each other (phase 2 and 3 are elaborations of phase 1). Therefore the results of the three phases together

are more than the sum of the parts.

Given the answers on the sub-questions in the three research-phases together, the main research question

can be answered (paragraph 10.1). Based on these overall conclusions, the final recommendations and

implications for Schiphol are presented in paragraph 10.2, followed by a summation of further research in

paragraph 10.3.

10.1 Conclusions The conclusions of the three phases answered the sub-questions of this research. These conclusions

together, answer the main question: What is the current role (influence) of CR at Schiphol, how can this be

improved and what are the potential benefits for the future (in order to become and stay Europe’s preferred

airport)?

Currently, CR definitely plays a role at Schiphol where the employees are familiar with the term and their

overall view on CR is positive: It is not unwanted and Schiphol should continue with CR. From the

respondents to the Q-method there were no people who stand diametrically opposite to each other.

Although, within Schiphol there are four perspectives on CR (sub-question 2), each with a slightly different

attitude towards the problem: the communicative believer, the strategic changer, the balanced profiteer and

the numerical collaborator, the existence of four perspectives is one of the main causes for the divided,

unstructured and insufficient CR policy at Schiphol. Different perspectives are present between layers of the

organization (directors vs. managers vs. operations). People say yes, but actually think and act differently.

Although Schiphol’s theory on CR is moving more and more in the right direction, if the execution in practice

is not in line with what both the scientific and Schiphol theory on CR prescribe, the discrepancy between

saying and doing will continue to exist (sub-question 1). The separate CR and business strategies, the many

CR teams, themes and KPIs cause over-organization, which is a result of this ‘sabotage’ in the execution of

the current CR policy. This is possible since the people from the four perspectives value the profit aspects

differently in relation to people and planet, whereby the profit aspects are often and from origin more

important than the people and planet aspects. Furthermore employees pass on the responsibility for CR

onto the board of directors, where no one is really responsible and judged on the CR performance of

Schiphol caused by a lack of incentives.

Therefore it is required to break with the current CR policy and implement changes to gain the benefits of

CR. The theory in phase 1 showed that CR-benefits definitely exist. In the short term; increased employee

welfare, financial benefits (fuel and resource efficiency, premium prices and reduced risks) and an increased

reputation are potential benefits which will maintain the public support for Schiphol. In the medium and

long-term this will lead to more financial benefits, increased performance and a competitive advantage. An

important factor in gaining this competitive advantage and eventually become Europe’s preferred airport is

Schiphol’s CR reputation. This research showed in phase 3 that transfer passengers are willing to pay ±€55

for an excellent CR reputation compared to a poor or average CR reputation. Given earlier research and

experiences during field research in this report, the current CR reputation of Schiphol is not experienced as

excellent but more average or even poor. Although the awareness on CR increases, Schiphol’s CR activities

are still relatively unknown among passengers. The CR reputation also has a share of 9% in the choice for a

transfer-airport made by the transfer passengers in the response-group of the conjoint analysis (sub-

85

Chapter 10. Overall Conclusions, Recommendations & Implications

question 4). These are tangible results for Schiphol that confirm the existence of CR-benefits for Schiphol and

indicate a promising and even more prominent role of CR in the coming years.

But before Schiphol can obtain the indicated rewards on CR, the difference between saying and doing should

be minimized. The new forthcoming business strategy whereby CR is integrated, should have ‘hands and

feet’ or roots in the organization. The Q-method in phase 2 showed that guidelines for decision-making

forms in the decision-making process are needed, which resulted in the design of ‘The Balanced Framework’.

This framework stimulates the awareness on people, planet and profit at all levels in the organization by

making more balanced and general valuation on people, planet and profit in decisions whether or not to

invest in projects (sub-question 3). The framework is conform with the requirements transparency,

simplicity, flexibility and accessibility to ensure a high level of acceptance for the implementation and use of

the framework. ‘The Balanced Framework’ will give the necessary ‘hand and feet’ to the CR policy. The actual

insight in the contribution of CR and its benefits together with more consciousness on what CR really means,

stimulates the CR culture within Schiphol and in the end brings Schiphol one step further in becoming

Europe’s preferred airport.

10.2 Recommendations & Implications for Schiphol This research made order from chaos, by indicating the different perspectives on CR. Schiphol should change

now in order to create the desired efficient and effective CR policy and obtain the CR-benefits in the future.

To realize this change, Schiphol should apply the following recommendations and implications which are

most important and are based upon the integration of the three phases.

Create a clear, consistent definition on CR with the right terminology. CR is about balancing people,

planet and profit in all levels and activities of Schiphol, which are weaved within the business strategy and

aligned with stakeholder expectations. This new definition is easy to realize and will create a clear

understanding and unity on CR and defines that CR is important for Schiphol.

Focus on expansion and growth (license to grow) instead of staying in business (license to operate). There

is overall consensus that Schiphol should ‘broaden its horizon’ and focus on the combination of CR and

the license to grow, which is an important shift in mindset.

Create more understanding and insight in the CR-benefits and the contribution to a competitive

advantage. Differentiate between short and long term benefits; make them visible, quantifiable and

understandable to employees. This will not only enhance the motivation and performance of employees,

but contributes in really acquiring the benefits of CR.

Integrate and align the CR strategy with the business strategy to avoid a separated CR strategy. Activities

and projects should be aligned to this strategy to optimize their contribution.

Present and communicate the existence of different perspectives throughout the whole organization on

all levels. Awareness on the different perspectives and the consensus and disagreement issues are

essential in all facets of working at Schiphol. Work-shops given by the CR ambassadors are an excellent

way to facilitate this.

Create incentives and inspiration from the top by showing commitment to and the importance of CR for

Schiphol, supported by a clear definition, goals and one interwoven CR/business strategy. An implication

is to make someone on a director level, preferably the CEO, responsible for the CR performance of

Schiphol. This person should be held accountable for the results or implementation of CR. The CEO has

the biggest internal and external exposure and it shows that CR really matters to an organization. Another

implication that is more applicable to the whole organization is to link the CR performance to the salary

or bonus of employees on manager level. When the bonus is not only dependent on the profit

performance but also on the people and planet performance, the manager is stimulated to also meet the

86


people and planet goals. Besides this, Schiphol should continue and stimulate internal initiatives which

contribute to the positive vibe of the CR culture. This improves the implementation of the CR policy,

indicated step-by-step in Figure 31.

Figure 31: Implementation steps of CR

Do not try to unite everybody into one perspective. Disagreement stimulates discussions and the quality

of ideas by avoiding tunnel vision. But be aware on the disagreement statements:

o A positive business case in investments is not always required;

o Schiphol should take a wait-and-see role in the sectorial approach to address CR;

o The equality of people, planet and profit.

Set guidelines to the decision-making process that first stimulates and later obliges the use of the

framework but not before ‘The Balanced Framework’ is proven and gained a high level of acceptance.

Employees need to understand and be convinced of the added value of the framework before they are

willing to put effort into it. If there is a group of proponents, pilot-projects like Lounge 2 are needed to

show that the framework really works and meets Schiphol’s goals. More pilot-projects are wanted.

Define the balance of people, planet and profit by setting weights to each P. Let experts define the values

per aspect in the scaling phase. After this is done more often in pilot-projects, the applicability and ease

of use in all levels of the organization increases.

Continue to invest in activities and projects that affect the CR reputation in a positive way to obtain an

excellent CR reputation. Focus hereby on experience and communication. Make the initiatives (preferably

planet-aspects like) more tangible and visible to let the passenger really experience CR. Schiphol should

become a top-ranked airport in national/international CR or sustainability rankings.

Communicate more transparently and fully towards stakeholders. Communicate all things related to CR,

also on social media, to provide them with a complete and clearer view on the activities of Schiphol.

Interactions such as with the ‘neighbor day’ and the passenger experience of CR are suitable activities for

Schiphol to expose its intentions. Feedback and input from these activities and stakeholders in general

are important to take into account, since they provide for a large extent the license to grow.

Conduct further research to determine the value of a CR reputation among other stakeholders, to gather

a complete overview of the importance of having a CR reputation and the willingness to pay among all

stakeholders. Also investigate how the wtp of ±€55 can be obtained after an excellent CR reputation is

obtained in collaboration with the airlines via airport fees or with the shop-retailers via higher rent or

premium prices for products.

10.3 Further Research The results of this research open the opportunity for further research. First, investigate in more detail how

different recommendations should be implemented at Schiphol. Organizational changes are most of the time

Inspirational

leadershipTop

Bottom

Management

Agreement

CR ActivitesOrganization

1

Board

Lessons

learned

Lively CR

culture

2

Board

Organization

3

Top-down Bottom-up

Self-sustaining

Self-strengthening

Loop

87

Chapter 10. Overall Conclusions, Recommendations & Implications

complex and face serious resistance. This research identified the weak spots in the CR policy at Schiphol,

elaborated on the decision-making process, proposed recommendations and mentioned the implications for

Schiphol. But this is not a guideline or instruction book that exactly prescribes how Schiphol can become

Europe’s preferred airport in which CR plays an important role. But not only internal effects have an impact

on the organizational change, “the most dominant factor that triggers organizational change is the external

environment. It is the external environment that makes an organization to change its mission, culture,

leadership and its operating strategies” (Mintzberg, 1993). The valuation for the CR reputation by transfer

passengers is an example of a dominant external effect, like also presented in the causal analysis in

Appendix II. More specific research on organizational change is therefore necessary. Here are some

examples:

How to integrate the business and CR strategy exactly?

What approach should the top-management take to act inspirational and be committed to CR?

The added value and quality of ‘The Balanced Framework’ increases if it is used. Therefore it is interesting to

research the application of the framework in other companies or institutions. If the basic principles of the

framework become more robust, each individual company that uses the framework will benefit since more

lessons will be learned.

This research investigated the CR reputation among transfer passengers and the results provide multiple

options for further research. A new study among more stakeholders, with more respondents to get

significant results, with more attributes and levels will provide a complete overview of the value of the CR

reputation among all stakeholders. Therefore, a research that replaces the fictitious flight for a real flight

with real airports of transfer will reveal the specific CR reputation of an airport. But when conducting this

research on the effects for individual airports and their CR reputation the researcher should be aware of the

complex environment and prejudices, which make each airport unique.

Lastly, having an excellent CR reputation pays off for an airport but it is unknown what exactly the current

status of the CR reputation at Schiphol is. Based on earlier research by GfK and experiences during the field

research in this research, it is known that the CR reputation of Schiphol is not excellent. The communication

and experience is still very much unknown amongst passengers. Therefore, future research should identify

the current state of the CR reputation more precisely and come up with a step-by-step plan on how to

improve the experience and communication of a CR reputation to eventually obtain an excellent CR

reputation.

88


11. Reflection This final chapter reflects on the research itself and the process of conduction the research. The reflection

addresses the limitations of the different phases individually and the combination and added value of the

three phases together.

11.1 Reflection on the Research Phases A reflection on each of the research phases is given, based on the chosen approach and methodologies that

are used to answer the sub-questions of this research.

Phase 1a: Differences & Similarities between Theory and Practice

The literature study on the scientific theory on CR was structured by the questions why, how and what. This

helped to order the extensive amount of literature and created a logical storyline. I totally agree with this

approach presented by Sinek on a TEDx event. You first need to know why you are doing CR, before you can

implement it efficient and successful in an organization. Afterwards you should know and obtain the benefits

CR offers. This approach and the literature review narrowed the scope and the focus of the research.

Although the amount of relevant literature on CR was extensive, the literature never analyzed the CR policy

that deep within an airport operator. I think it is valuable for both science and practice to verify the theory

with the practice. The differences and similarities showed that the theory and practice are not exactly the

same and that mainly the execution of the theory in practice causes unexpected problems and resistance.

Phase 1b: Perspectives on CR revealed by the Q-methodology

The Q-methodology definitely proved its contribution to this research. I did not know the method in

advance, but I and the people within Schiphol were surprised and enthusiastic about the powerful, relevant

and useful results the method delivers. If I have to do the research again, or identify perspectives once more

in another situation, I would prefer to use Q-methodology again. The perspectives are really meaningful and

especially the disagreement statements are relevant for any organization to know.

The mix of people in the P-set was sufficient and suitable enough to represent the organization Schiphol. I

was recommended to conduct the Q-method with employees that are related to CR, but I thought that

people who are not involved should not be left out of the research. They have another opinion, which is

confirmed by the results, which should be included in order to identify all perspectives that are present.

The mix of statements gathered from interviews and literature in the Q-set was also sufficient. When I

attended CR-meetings, the discussion was most of the time about the disagreement statements identified by

this research. This means that these are the actual points of discussion and that the Q-set therefore covered

most of the important issues. Next time I would prefer less statements to save time, looking back showed

that not all statements were that interesting and were most of the time put in a neutral position.

The results showed an exceptional number of 43% which could be represented by one single factor before

the factors were rotated. This is caused by the presence of only positive correlations between the Q-sorts.

This is quite unique and can indicate that there is much consensus within Schiphol on CR. But it can also be

caused by that the Q-set actually did not covered all issues on which there is discussion. Another explanation

might be that the P-set still consisted of people with a same perspective, caused by the network people have

and the recommendations they did. Although I was aware of both explanations on forehand, it still can be a

possible explanation for the high correlation.

Looking back on the Q-sorting procedure, next time I would translate the statements into Dutch. At Schiphol

almost everything is done and written in Dutch. I do not think that the English statements limit their

89

Chapter 11. Reflection

understanding, but in Dutch the procedure would be more efficient. Another idea is to investigate the

possibility to conduct the Q-method online. It takes much time to conduct the Q-sort procedure face-to-face

and ranking paper cards looks somewhat old-fashioned in the current digitalized world. But the biggest

disadvantage of this is the lack of interaction. This is needed to really understand his perspective by asking

questions and writing down quotes for the interpretation of the perspectives.

Phase 2: The Balanced Framework

This paragraph reflects on various points and issues of the framework which require some explanation.

Besides the administrative control of a framework, there are other tools or incentives to stimulate more

awareness on people, planet and profit in the decision-making process. For a manager-led company like

Schiphol, the current incentive structure is problematic. If managers are paid a bonus for short-term goals,

they will most likely act in a short run manner so as to maximize their compensation, which will conflict with

the long-term goals. Social investments might have a different expected NPV for owners than it does for

managers. If managers are short-term oriented, they will have a higher individual discount rate. Accordingly,

the expected NPV is more likely to be negative and the investment will not be made. Therefore the time

period for return on investments should shift from the current 5 year to i.e. a more long-term 20 year. This

goes hand-in-hand with a change in the compensation scheme. Current bonuses are dependent on profit

indicators, so the incentive is focused on reaching these indicators. But since the people and planet are

absent, they will always have less priority than the profit indicators. By determining the bonus not only on

profit indicators, but also on people and planet indicators, the priority for these aspects increases. Another

option is to change the cash bonus to stocks bonus, but since Schiphol is not quoted on the stock exchange

this is not an option.

In the scaling phase the choice has been made define the scores based on %. This makes the different

aspects comparable. For example: 20 ton CO2 emission reduction and 130 ton Joule reduction are hard to

compare, but a respective 4% and 19% reduction provides more information on the impact of the project.

Linking this %s to ranges with corresponding values on the 9-point scale makes it possible to compare them

and define contribution to the strategic impact. Other methods such as the division of points between are

not chosen, since they have more subjectivity. When this is done in this phase of the process, employees can

steer their projects towards better scores. Therefore subjectivity should be limited in this phase and shifted

towards the weighting by the IC. But this subjectivity by employees is still hard to neglect. The risk of

selecting ‘easy to calculate’ indicators or indicators that favor a project is still present. To limit this effect,

being aware of its existence is a good safeguard. Justification towards multiple experts is another way to

limit this effect.

It is important to mention once more, that the outcome of the weighting by the IC is not a binding decision,

but an advice. The use of the framework is already an improvement in the awareness on people, planet and

profit in this phase and will give insight in the different benefits per aspect. The goal is to stimulate the

discussion within the IC while defining the weights in percentages for the PPP and the diverse aspects per P.

The Balanced Framework has a broader application than the practice at Schiphol for which it is designed. It is

definitely suitable for other firms as well, as long as they have a decision-making process that somewhat

corresponds with a scaling and weighting phase. The only things that need to be adjusted are the lists of

indicators and determination of the units and ranges of percentages by experts. The lists are quite extensive,

so other firms in other sectors should only need to choose a new selection of indicators.

There are different motives for a project or investment: replacement, growth or precondition. Replacement

projects are all projects that require an investment because objects are broken-down or need maintenance.

90


Examples are new asphalt for the runways, new printers or computers at the office or a broken-down snow-

swipe truck that needs to be replaced. Growth projects require an investment to make future growth

possible. Examples are investments in the runway capacity or a more time-efficient security check system.

Precondition projects are just needed because of rules, laws and regulations. Examples are projects to

reduce the noise levels to the required level or projects that reduce CO2 emissions to meet the maximum

level defined by the EU. The motive of a project has implications for the framework. Although some projects

needs to be done on precondition, which leaves no discussion about the ‘go’ decision in the end, different

variants of this project can still be assessed by the framework in order to pick the project that has the best

balance and meets the precondition. The framework can also be applied to innovation or growth projects for

example, but in that case the decision is not fixed (all alternatives can have a no go). Once more, the

outcome of the framework is not a final decision but an advice that stimulates the awareness and discussion

on people, planet and profit in the decision-making.

In general, I experienced that the theory on MCDA and frameworks is not always in line with the practice.

You really need practical experiences and information from interviews to make sure that the implementation

of your framework will be smooth and successful. The adjustability, room for changes according to the

practice is an important characteristic and lessons learned. This also relates to the fact that the framework is

not totally prescribing what to do, but describes how the new framework should be used and were the

added value is. Before the theory will work in practice, you have to create and reach a certain level of

acceptance. Since you cannot do it all alone, you will need other people that also believe in your framework

and are willing to put energy and effort in it. I think I succeeded in this approach with ‘ The Balanced

Framework’, the prospects are positive.

Phase 3: The CR reputation among transfer passengers

First, the utilities were all except one non-significant. Therefore the results are not valid for the whole

population of transfer passengers. Second, the experiment only focuses on transfer passengers. Schiphol has

many more stakeholders, who also give a value to the CR reputation. Third, only four attributes were used in

this research. Fourth, the experiment represented a fictitious flight with unnamed airports. It is possible that

for each individual airport the CR reputation differs given the complexity of the environment the airport

finds itself. An airport has already a negative perception and therefore the effects of a CR reputation are also

less. Another possibility is that the country of the airport has a positive sustainable or green reputation,

which has side-effects on a more positive CR reputation of that airport. Fifth, the model does not estimate

interactions between attributes. It is possible that the transfer passengers associate the airport quality also

with the transfer time or that the wtp for a CR reputation is part of the ticket price. Sixth, the current CR

reputation of Schiphol is unknown and not present in this research since it used a fictive flight.

Besides all this, I experienced that the transfer passenger was not an easy target group for this type of

surveys. The transfer passenger has time, which is a big advantage, but is on the other hand most of the time

sleeping or tired because of a jetlag. If I found a suitable respondent, sometimes they were not able to

complete the research because their English was insufficient or they did not understand the survey at all.

Next time, digital surveys or conducting the surveys at places with more people at the same time (in a plane

waiting for take-off) are possibilities to save time and increase efficiency.

11.2 Reflection on the Process The overall research was conducted in 8 months, which is slightly longer than normal but it was definitely

worth it. The actual relevance of this topic for society, Schiphol and science were a great motivation and

stimulation to me. The uncertainty of the impact of CR on a company like Schiphol, which itself is a big

contributor to the Dutch economy, in the complex and very competitive aviation industry boosted this only

91

Chapter 11. Reflection

more. Thereby I really enjoyed the combination of scientific methodologies with practical experiences. This

combination of quantitative and qualitative argumentation is in line with the TPM background and very

suitable to solve the problems Schiphol faced in this complex multi-actor environment.

The Q-methodology and the stated-choice model as part of the conjoint analysis were new to me and the

application in this thesis increased my knowledge on quantitative analysis. This is in line with my high

ambition and eagerness to learn. Together with familiar methodologies such as interviews, literature review,

stakeholder analysis, MCDA and institutional analysis this contributed to the quality and completeness of

this research. The relevance and use of the results of my thesis were of high priority to me, therefore I took a

strategic approach in my analysis. The strategy is the start of a change since it determines the course of an

organization, so giving recommendations and implications on this level maximizes the use of this report. This

is confirmed by the reward and recognition I got as feedback from Schiphol with the presentation to a full

Direction Team as highlight. From a personal perspective I am therefore very satisfied with the quality and

process of the report, which confirmed my interest in strategy consultancy.

Next to that, there are some final comments or experience I would like to mention. First, I experienced that

the knowledge from the bachelor and master System Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management is very

useful in practice. The analytical and structural skills of problem solving are very valuable, whereby the

understanding of both the technology and economy is essential to communicate and present your problems

to the problem owner. Second, I gathered almost all the required data myself (Q-method, interviews,

literature, surveys). This was really an advantage in understanding and using the data.

92


Literature ACI. (2010). Year Report 2010. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: ACI World Headquarter. AEA. (2010). Delivering a bright future for European Aviation and Passengers: 5 year Strategic Plan 2010-

2014. Brussels, Belgium: Association of European Airlines. AGDG. (2009). A Sectoral Approach to adressing International Aviation Emissions. Aguilera, R. V. (2007). Putting the S back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of Social

Change in Organizations Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863. Air-France, & KLM. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2009-2010. Schiphol: KLM Royal Dutch

Airlines, CSR Office. Akhtar-Danesh, N., Baumann, A., & Cordingley, L. (2008). Q-Methodology in Nursing Research: A Promising

Method for the Study of Subjectivity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 30(6). Alders, H. (2008). Advies aan van de Alderstafel over de toekomst van Schiphol en de regio voor de

middellange termijn. In d. h. C. E. De minister van Verkeer & Waterstaat & m. J. C. De minister van VROM (Eds.). Den Haag: Tafel van Alders.

Altran Sustainable Solutions. (2011). Corporate Responsibility& Business Case Management. Training at Schiphol Group by Bart Tamboer & Arnoud Six, Schiphol (23 juni 2011).

ATAG. (2008). The economic & social benefits of air transport. Geneva, Switzerland. Aupperle, K. E. (1985). An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility

and Profitability. The Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463. Balch, O. (2011). CEO interview: Peter Bakker, TNT - Be responsible throughout your business. Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate

social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794-816. Barry, J., & Proops, J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics,

28, 337–345. Baumert, K. A., Herzog, T., & Pershing, J. (2005). Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and

International Climate Policy: World Resources Institute. Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Hill, R. (2005). The Impact of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility On Consumer

Behavior. Working Paper Series, Center for Responsible Business, UC Berkeley. Bhattacharya, C. B. (2008). Using Corporate Social Responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan;

Management Review, 49(2). BITC. (2012). Corporate Responsibility Index 2012. Londen. Black Sun Plc. (2011). Telling the story: Sixth annual analysis of FTSE 100 corporate reporting trends. Bos, I., & van Wee, B. (2005). Betalingsbereidheid voor voorzieningen en diensten op een P+R faciliteit

Tijdschrift voor vervoerswetenschap, 41(1). Bows, A. (2009). Air Transport, Climate Change and Tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning &

Development, 6(1), 7-20. Breeuwer, J. (2012). The Green Terminal. Delft University of Technology, Delft. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press. Brown, S. R. (1986). Q Technique and Method: Principles and procedures. In W. D. Berry & M. S. Lewis-Back

(Eds.), New Tools for Social Scientists: Advances and applications in research methods. London: Sage. Brown, S. R. (1996). Q Methodology and Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561-567. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future. In W. C. o. E. a. Development (Ed.), Oxford University Press.

Oxford, UK / New York, USA. Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off. Long Range Planning, 29(4),

95-104. Business for Social Responsibility. (2000). Introduction to Corporate Social Responsibility. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility : Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business Society,

38(3), 268-295. Commission of the European Communities. (2003). What is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)? Costa Jordão, T. (2009). A sustainability overview of the best practices in the airport sector. Scientific papers

of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of Economics and Administration, 15.

Literature

93

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1–13.

Dennis, K. E., & Goldberg, A. P. (1996). Weight control self-efficacy types and transitions affect weight-loss outcomes in obese women. Addictive Behaviors, 21(103-116).

Dossier Duurzaam. (2008). Dossier Duurzaam onderzoek Luchtvaart Hilversum. Draper, S. (2006). Corporate responsibility and competitiveness at the meso level: Key models for delivering

sector-level corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance, 6(4). ELFAA. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility: Issues for Future Development in the Low-Fares Airlines

Sector. Economic & Social Research Council, University of Exeter: Centre for Sport, Leisure and Tourism(Insights from members of the European Low Fares Airline Association).

Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good. Business Horizons, 50, 247–254.

Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard - Linking Sustainability Management to Business Strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 269–284.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. University of Virginia. Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times

Magazine. GfK Custom Research. (2009). Luchthaven Schiphol en duurzaamheid: Een kwantitatief onderzoek naar de

mate van duurzaamheid van de luchthaven Schiphol. Amsterdam: Intomart GfK. Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. J. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects.

Interfaces, 31, 56-73. Greening, L. A., & Bernowb, S. (2004). Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of

multi-criteria decision-making. Energy Policy, 32, 721–735. Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The Hidden Traps in Decision Making. Harvard Business

Review, September - October. Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between

emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5, 30-37. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. (2011). Airports Going Green: Sustainable Use and Reuse of

Airport Facilities Paper presented at the Airports Going Green. Harvey, G. (1987). Airport Choice in a multiple Airport Region. Transportation Research, 21 A(6). Henscher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge, UK. Hess, S., & Polak, J. W. (2005). Mixed logit modelling of airport choice in multi-airport regions. Journal of Air

Transport Management, 11, 59–68. Husted, B. W. (2003). Governance Choices for Corporate Social Responsibility: to Contribute, Collaborate or

Internalize? Long Range Planning, 36, 481–498. IATA. (2011a). Air transport market analysis: Key points August 2011. IATA Economics International Air

Transport Association. IATA. (2011b). Fact Sheet: Environment. Montreal. IPCC. (1999). Aviation and the Global Atmosphere: A Special Report of IPCC Working Groups I and III [Penner,

J.E., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Ishii, J. J., S., & Van Dender, K. (2009). Air travel choices in multi-airport markets. Journal of Urban Economics,

65, 216–227. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard

Business Review, January - February Keeney, L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. New

York: Wiley. Keeney, R. L. (1994). Creativity in Decision-Making with Value-Focused Thinking. Sloan Management Review,

Summer 1994. Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand

evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 203–217. Kleindorfer, P. R. (2005). Sustainable Operations Management. Production and Operations Management

Society, 14(4), 482–492.

94


Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2008). A perspective on multinational enterprises and climate change: Learning from 'an inconvenient truth'? Journal of International Business Studies.

Kroesen, M., & Bröer, C. (2009). Policy discourse, people’s internal frames, and declared aircraft noise annoyance: An application of Q-methodology Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 126(1), 195–207.

Lee, M.-D. P. (2007). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73.

Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives Climatic Change, 77, 73–95.

Louviere, J. J., Henscher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Application. Cambridge, UK.

Lynes, J. K., & Andrachuk, M. (2008). Motivations for corporate social and environmental responsibility: A case study of Scandinavian Airlines. Journal of International Management, 14, 377–390.

Lynes, J. K., & Dredge, D. (2006). Going Green: Motivations for Environmental Commitment in the Airline Industry. A Case Study of Scandinavian Airlines. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(2), 116-138.

MacKerron, G. J., Egerton, C., Gaskell, C., Parpia, A., & Mourato, S. (2009). Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-beneftis among (high)-flying young adults in the UK. Energy Policy, 37, 1372-1381.

Mangan, K. (2007). People, Profit, and Planet: Business schools find that it pays to offer programs in sustainable development. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(2), A14.

Martin, R. L. (2002). The Virtue Matrix: Calculating the Return on Corporate Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, March 2002(r0203e), 10.

McKeown, B. F., & Thomas, D. B. (1988). Q Methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McNaught, A., & Howard, C. (2001). Q Methodology: Pragmatic considerations and epistemiological

concerns. Health Psychology Update, 10, 24-28. McWilliams, A. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of

management review. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications.

Journal of Management Studies, 43(1). Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations (Vol. vii). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US:

Prentice-Hall, Inc. Netterstrom, R. (2009). CSR Asia: CR or CSR - does it matter? Eature articles, 5(29). Oehlmann, I. (2010). The Sustainable Footprint Methodology: Including sustainability in the project

management of the Bergermeer Gas Storage project. Del ft University of Technology, Delft. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London:

Continuum. Orlitzky, M. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3),

403−441. Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (1998). Airport choice in a multiple airport region: an empirical analysis for

the San Francisco Bay Area.: Free University Amsterdam, Department of Regional Economics. Porras, I., & Hope, R. A. (2005). Using stated-choice methods in the design of payements for environmental

service schemes. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social

responsibility. Harvard Business Review, December 2006. Prasad, R. S. (2001). Development of the HIV/AIDS Q-sort instrument to measure physician attitudes. Clinical

Research Methods, Family Medicine, Nov/Dec, 772–778. Schiphol Group. (2003). Annual Report 2002. Schiphol: Schiphol Group. Schiphol Group. (2004). Annual Report 2003. Schiphol: Schiphol Group. Schiphol Group. (2005). Annual Report 2004. Schiphol: Schiphol Group. Schiphol Group. (2009). Duurzaamheids Onderzoek. In S. Group (Ed.). Amsterdam: Schiphol Group. Schiphol Group. (2010a). Annual Report 2009. Schiphol Group. (2010b). Focus brengen in Corporate Responsibility. Schiphol: Schiphol Group. Schiphol Group. (2011a). Annual Report 2010. Schiphol Group. (2011b). Corporate Responsibility: Factsheet.

Literature

95

Schiphol Group. (2012a). Annual Report 2012. Schiphol: Schiphol Group. Schiphol Group. (2012b). Kwaliteitsmonitor Q1. Schmolck, P. (Producer). (2002) PQMethod Version 2.20. Last viewed at 27-1-2012. Scott, D., Peeters, P., & Gossling, S. (2010). Can tourism delevier its 'aspirational' greenhouse gas emission

reduction targets? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 393-408. Sell, D. K., & Brown., S. R. (1984). Q methodology as a bridge between qualitative and quantitative research:

Application to the analysis of attitude change in foreign study program participants. In J. L. V. H. A. Johnson (Ed.), Qualitative research in education (pp. 79-87). Kent, OH: Kent State University: Graduate School of Education Monograph Series.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2004). Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Iniatives. California Management Review 47(1).

SIM. (2011). Samenwerking innovatieve mainport. Retrieved 08-10-2011, 2011, from http://www.innovatievemainport.nl

Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: how great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York: Penguin Group. Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q methodology. In R. H. L. V. L. J.A. Smith (Ed.), Rethinking methods in psychology

(pp. 178-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stainton Rogers, W. (1991). Explaining health and illness: An exploration of diversity. London:

Harvester/Wheatsheaf. Stenner, P. H. D. (2003). Putting the Q into quality of life; the identification of subjective constructions of

health-related quality of life using Q methodology. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 2161–2172. Stephenson, W. (1978). Concourse theory of communication. Communication, 3, 21-40. Synergie. (2011). Sustainable Image Index 2011. Utrecht: Synergie. Teoh, S. H. (1999). Issues in the Use of the Event Study Methodology: A Critical Analysis of Corporate Social

Responsibility Studies. Organizational Research Methods, 2(340). Tsai, W.-H., & Hsu, J.-L. (2008). Corporate social responsibility programs choice and costs assessment in the

airline industry—A hybrid model. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14, 188– 196. Valenta, A. L. (1997). Q-methodology: Definition and Application in Health Care Informatics. Journal of the

American Medical Informatics Association 4(6). van Daal, W. (2009). Portfoliomanagement at Schiphol: Capacity planning and investment selection. PPM

Jaarcongres, Slides 7-8. van der Woerd, F. (2004). Feasibility of a Responsive Business Scorecard - a pilot study. Journal of Business

Ethics, 55, 173-186. van Eeten, M. J. G. (2001). Recasting Intractable Policy Issues: The Wider Implications of The Netherlands

Civil Aviation Controversy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3), 391–414. van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency

and Communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 95–105. van Marrewijk, M. (2004). A Value Based Approach to Organization Types: Towards a coherent set of

stakeholder-oriented management tools. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 147--158. Warhurst, A. (2005). Future roles of business in society: the expanding boundaries of corporate responsibility

and a compelling case for partnership. Futures, 37, 151–168. Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative

Research in Psychology, 2, 67-91. Wijnen, R. A. A., Walker, W. E., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2008). Decision Support for Airport Strategic Planning.

Transportation Planning and Technology, 31(1), 11-34. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility:

Meeting changing expectations. Geneva. Wright, P., & Ferris, S. (1997). Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate

value. Strategic management Journal, 18, 77-83. Zadek, S. (2004). The Path to Corporate Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, December Edition.


96


Appendices

Balancing People, Planet and Profit: An Analysis of the Impact of

Corporate Responsibility on the Policy and Strategy at Schiphol


Appendix I: Actor Analysis

97

Appendix I: Actor Analysis The actor analysis consists of three parts. First a goal-tree analysis is given in Appendix 1A, to identify and structure the goals for the problem owner: Schiphol.

Second all the actors in the environment of Schiphol are listed in Appendix 1B and analyzed on interest, influence and replaceability. Third, these actors are plotted

to see the relation between interest and influence.

Appendix I A: Goal-Tree Schiphol The goal-tree analysis in Figure A-32 shows hierarchically the goals of the problem owner Schiphol. The top-goal is to become and stay Europe’s preferred airport.

This is the true vision of Schiphol and all other goals are sub-goals contributing to the top-goal. On the second level the goal is to align activities more with

stakeholder expectations. This includes more communication, minimize operational impact and more integration of CR and business strategy. On the other side, the

goal is to outrank competitors which mainly focuses on the main functions of an airport.

The goal-tree is a mix of what Schiphol should do according to the scientific literature and what Schiphol currently already does from a CR perspective and within

the scope of this research.

Figure A-32: Goal-tree analysis

98


Appendix I B: Actors and their Interest, Influence and Replaceability This part of the actor analysis lists all the actors in the environment of Schiphol. These actors are involved with Schiphol or have any interest in or influence on the

main goal of Schiphol to become and stay Europe’s preferred airport. Clients and other actors that do business at Schiphol are addressed as business partners.

Besides different levels of governments (from local to European) and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) in especially the aviation sector are analyzed. Also

the problem owner is distinguished in general, director and employees to see if there are internal differences in interests. Last but definitely not least, the society is

addressed with the residents as important actor.

Group Actor Interest Influence/power on CR strategy Replaceable

KLM-Air France Schiphol should take action as operator in becoming a sustainable airport, without changing the tax tariffs.

High, Schiphol's main client who work close together. It's like a marriage but without the divorce option.

Low, divorce is not possible for both

Other airlines Schiphol should take action as operator in becoming a sustainable airport, without changing the tax tariffs.

Medium, every client is king but are not the main airline

Medium, replaceable but unwanted for Schiphol

European competitive airports

Operate more passengers and cargo than Schiphol High, cooperation on sectorial approach possible but still competitors. If they apply CR, Schiphol should follow to prevent passenger/airline loss.

Low, will continue to exist.

Airport Paris Charles de Gaulle

Competitor, but also has an interest (stocks) in Schiphol and vice versa. Cooperation on CR development, but still competitor.

High, Competitor on passengers and main hub. Has influence through stocks

Low, stocks can be sold. No option as main hubs for KLM-Air France

Business partners

Regional airports Take away passengers from Schiphol, while Schiphol has a share in most of them.

Low, no option for most international passengers. Only small amount of O-D passengers. But not the group choosing for CR.

Low, not on the short-term.

Transfer passengers

Have an excellent stay at Schiphol and prefer Schiphol above other airports

High, around 40% of the total passengers. Volatile group, easily switching between airports which is an opportunity to capture them by CR

High, easily switching between airports

O-D passengers Have an excellent start of the journey High, 60% share of passengers. Question is to find out the CR influence, but they expect to fly from a sustainable airport

Medium, Schiphol is almost the only option for international passengers

Taxi companies More clients, shorter wait times and lower tariffs at Schiphol. CR is not a big deal, only costs money and investments in green cars.

Low, clients of Schiphol who are dependent on its guidelines.

High, other companies are available

Retailers High profit, so more passengers. Wants that Schiphol does something about CR without higher tariffs

Medium, shop operators decide which retailer gets a spot. Will sell CR friendly products if consumers are willing to pay

High, other retailers are available

Shop operators Implement CR at the shops, eco-efficiency (LED) and it is required by society

High, in close cooperation with Schiphol trying to make Schiphol more CR and stimulate investments

Medium, long-term relationships has benefits but others available


99

Airplane manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus)

Just make engines conform the laws and regulations on CR

Low, but Schiphol can stimulate higher requirements for the airplanes on CR issues. Bigger impact than an airport operator

Low, they together have an oligopoly

Board Continuous operation and growth of Schiphol, mainly focus on profit and do CR because society expects it

High, they make the strategy Medium, can be fired for mismanagement but happens not often

Schiphol Group

General (problem owner)

Apply CR as much as expected by stakeholders, avoid reputational damage, continue with current strategy

High, problem owner can change the current strategy at this point

No, will continue to exist

Employees Different perspectives, but want a good work environment, work-life balance and working conditions

High, employees need to do it at the bottom; they are the power of the organization. But should have more impact on the strategy

Low, can be influenced but not replaced at all.

Dutch government; ministry of EA

Continuity, grow as mainport for Dutch economy and connection to the world. But conform the laws and regulations

High, biggest shareholder with conflicting interests of growth vs. CR needs to balanced; CR can be growth. Sets laws & regulations

Low, main government and owner

Province North-Holland

Again double interests, growth for more wealth and jobs but limit for nuisance of inhabitants

Medium, grants permits and conditions but also want a balanced CR strategy

Low, can't replace the province

Governments Municipality Amsterdam

Double interests: Amsterdam connected to the world, jobs vs. nuisance for inhabitants

High, shareholder who wants a balanced CR strategy without affecting the profit

Low, can't replace the municipality

Municipality Haarlemmermeer

Double interests: Haarlemmermeer connected to the world, jobs vs. nuisance for inhabitants

Medium, wants a balanced strategy to balance their double interests

Low, can't replace the municipality

Waterboard of Rijnland

High quality of the water, save and clean drinking water, less pollution by Schiphol

Medium, grant permit and can influence laws & regulations.

Low, can't replace the water board

European Union /Committee

Economic welfare, high quality of life, airports are main economic driver + gateway to the world, limit nuisance

Medium, set European laws & regulations Low, can't be replaced

IATA Leads and serve the airlines, so apply CR as much as necessary but focus on profit

Low, association of airlines but KLM as main client is more important. Potential help sectorial approach

Low, will continue to exist.

NGO's

ICAO Promotes understanding and security through cooperative aviation regulation, making aviation more environmental friendly

Low, influence on whole aviation sector but no power to influence Schiphol. Addresses CR by reports

Low, can't be replaced

ACI Association of airports, wants to continue to grow and stimulate cooperation also on CR

Low, can stimulate but not oblige Schiphol Low, can't be replaced

GRI All firms should report by the guidelines of the GRI for a more CR balanced society and business

Medium, develops a sustainable way of reporting which plays a role in the CR strategy

High, it is not obliged to report conform the GRI

General public National economic growth but also a good quality of life; Schiphol should apply CR

Low, can choose the government by elections, put external pressure on CR which can delay the

Low, will be there.

100


process

Society Labor Unions Good working conditions at work, more People

aspects in the organization Medium, can delay decisions on mainly the People aspect

Low, will be there.

Environmental organizations

Putting environmental issues on the political agenda, CR should be applied at Schiphol (or stop Schiphol)

Medium, Protests, media attention

Medium, can be a friend but always be there

Residents in CROS-region

Limit Schiphol in their license to grow to reduce nuisance by Schiphol (sound, air quality, traffic)

High, have a vote in the Alders Tafel and can complain/block/delay decision-making on the airport.

Low, need to take them serious.

Table A-22: Actor analysis

The interest of an actor represents the main goal of that actor, while the influence is the amount of power an actor has to affect the interests of Schiphol. This is

categorized as low, medium or high. The same categorization applies to the replaceability of an actor. If the actor is highly replaceable, the power and interest for

that actor decline since it can be replaced. But a low replaceability means that there is a big chance that Schiphol has to deal with this actor for a long time and

should take it serious in (non)business relations.

Figure A-33 shows a plot of the actors and their interest related to their influence. The influence can vary from different to similar and actors can have high or low

influence on the goal of Schiphol. The plot is divided in four quadrants: the strong supporters, weak supporters, weak opponents and strong opponents. Schiphol

should take the strong opponents in mind. Especially the social parties as the residents, general public and the environmental organizations are not appreciating the

noise and pollution from Schiphol. But they can have a big impact or limit the license to grow of Schiphol by mobilizing the media, protests which undermine the

acceptance for Schiphol. Therefore they should be taken seriously. They should become integrated in the process from the beginning and really have the

opportunity to have their say. Schiphol should listen to them and do what is possible to satisfy these actors. Another notable actor is the employees, who slightly

have similar interests. They want more social quality of the work-environment and have different perspectives on the CR role in the organization. Since employee

performance is closely related to firm performance, they also are an important actor.


101

The weak opponents play a less important role, but they should be stimulated to become weak supporters.

By having meetings with the taxi companies or airplane manufacturers, agreements about the CO2 pollution

of their services/products at Schiphol can be made. A strong supporter is the Dutch government, since they

own shares of Schiphol and prefer the economic benefits above the environmental noise of Schiphol.

Although other EU airports are competitors for Schiphol, they all deal with the rising demand for a CR policy.

Sharing knowledge and working together to deal with these issues can make them stronger together in the

competition with fast-growing airports as Dubai.

Figure A-33: Influence vs. interest matrix

102


Appendix II: Causal Analysis The causal analysis shows the relation of all relevant aspects in the complex environment of Schiphol. Only

relevant aspects for this research are taken into account. The orange aspects are not influenced by other

aspects and influence others, while the green aspects are only influenced by others and are not influencing

other aspects. The blue aspects are influenced by and influence others. A positive relation, positively affects

the other. For instance if the fuel efficiency increases, the energy savings will also increase. A negative

relation is the other way around, so if there is more open communication the amount of complaining

neighbors’ declines. The direction of the relation can also be uncertain, represented by a question-mark, for

instance it is uncertain if investments in R&D will lead to innovations. It is possible that there are many, but

also that there are none.

Figure A-34: Causal diagram

Appendix III: System Diagram

103

Appendix III: System Diagram The causal analysis is the foundation for the system diagram, presented in Figure A-35. The orange aspects,

which are not influenced, are separated in external and internal aspects. Schiphol can influence the internal

aspects such as strong leadership by improving this. Also Schiphol can vary the port charges. But Schiphol is

not able to influence the external aspects. The growths of other airports, or the economic situation are just

factors Schiphol has to deal with. Although there is slight influence on laws & regulations by lobbying and the

general perception can be slightly influenced by good behavior, these relations go through a system of other

aspects and thus have a very indirect relation. The system consists of factors as the CR reputation,

awareness on CR and the passenger experience of Schiphol. In the end, the performance of the system is

given by the output aspects which were the green aspects in the causal diagram. The gap between reducing

CO2 emissions through innovations and savings against the increase in flights and growth of the aviation

sector is an important indicator. For Schiphol the performance is split up in three aspects: planet, people and

profit performance of the airport. This is the bottom line of this research and is the foundation for a good CR

policy at Schiphol.

Figure A-35: System diagram

104


Appendix IV: Q-methodology This appendix shows the tools, results and other relevant data used by conducting the Q-methodology.

Appendix IV A: Q-set The full list of statements used in the Q-methodology, the Q-set, is presented in Table A-23 below. The total

of 50 statements is based on different sources: 19 statements are from the scientific literature, while 31

statements come from interviews with various Schiphol employees. To check if the statements represent all

relevant fields and are not overlapping, a categorization between decision-making process, strategy,

stakeholder reputation, costs & benefits and implementation is made. The statements are also stated in such

a way that overall a normal distribution is possible, to prevent that everybody agrees with all statements.

Nr Statements on Corporate Responsibility at Schiphol

1 CR activities should always be strategic and contribute to the competitive advantage of the firm

2 Young people are able to make a more balanced decision on planet, people and profit

3

Openness in CR communication towards all internal and external stakeholders results in more support and understanding

4

Strong leadership/management agreement from the top is required in order to successful implement CR at Schiphol

5

In order to successful implement CR and ensure consistency, all levels in the organization should apply and integrate CR

6

CR must create the greatest social good at the least possible cost. It’s all about efficiency or cost-effectiveness

7

The question for companies has become not whether to commit to CR, but how to do so in the most cost-effective manner

8 Integrating CR into the corporate strategy requires, as a minimum, the inclusion of stakeholder input

9 Consumers are willing to pay for social and environmental benefits of goods and services

10 CR reduces costs and increases efficiency by cutting resource use and waste generation

11 CR avoids or delays regulatory action

12 CR gains a competitive advantage

13 CR contributes in creating a positive green image

14

Expanding limited resources (money) on social issues necessarily decreases the competitive position of a firm by unnecessarily increasing its costs

15 There is a positive relation between CR and R&D investments

16 There is a positive relation between CR and advertising

17 CR strategy plays an important role in the license to grow (creates value for shareholders)

18

The incorporation of aviation within the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme is an important first step in addressing reducing pollution

19 Self-interest is the working assumption of most firms participating in CR

20 Decisions on investments always need a positive business case

21 The valuation of CR-project is based on ‘natte vinger’ work

22 CR related guidelines for decisions-making forms are not needed

23 CR aspects are monitored and reported, but are not considered in investments

24

The airport park is an eye-opener indicating that awareness on CR is rewarded with realization of the project

25

Schiphol should make the relevant benefits of CR quantifiable, this will increase the awareness and involvement on PPP

26 People, planet and profit are equally important for Schiphol

Literature

Appendix IV: Q-methodology

105

27 CR strategy should be in line with Schiphol's business strategy

28 There is a difference between saying and doing on CR at Schiphol (like the annual report)

29 Current CR organization and strategy is sufficient

30 CR will make Schiphol Europe’s preferred airport

31 The CR paragraph in the annual report hinders further development of CR strategy

32 CR performance by reaching KPIs should be linked to the salary and bonus of managers

33 The CR themes (work, mobility and energy) are representing the correct focus for Schiphol

34 Implementing CR successfully in the organization is a process of around 3-5 years

35

CR strategy should focus on the license to operate (apply to laws & regulations); you have to do the basics right

36 CR needs to be implemented top-down instead of bottom-up

37 First create internal structure before the external CR can work out right

38 Internal resources are currently sufficient for realizing CR ideas

39

CR is only present in the left pillar (socio-economic function) of the vision and not in the right (entrepreneurial management), it should be the foundation for both

40

It is good that Schiphol uses CR for its PR reputation, in order to rank better than competitive airports

41 Transfer passengers chose Schiphol for its CR reputation

42 External CR communication towards stakeholders neighbours is sufficient

43 By ‘Green washing’ its activities, Schiphol hurts its reputation

44 Image is more important than planet and people

45 Schiphol should be a 'first mover' and act inspiring instead of reacting on others

46

Financial contribution to SOS-Kinderdorpen/Unicef is not in line with Schiphol's core business and CR strategy, and therefore a waste of money

47

The emissions in aviation can only be reduced when the whole aviation industry applies CR in their daily business

48 I see CR as something unwanted, an extra effort with almost no results

49 Schiphol should take control and stimulate other stakeholders in a sectorial approach for CR

50 Schiphol should stop with CR

Decision-making process

Strategy

Stakeholder reputation

Costs & Benefits

Implementation Table A-23: The Q-set

Legend

Interviews

106


Appendix IV B: P-set Table A-24 shows an overview of the P-set. This are all the participants in the Q-methodology, whereby

characteristics as function, special, age, gender and CR involvedness are asked to further analyse relations

between those characteristics and the perspectives on CR. The P-set consists of people from all levels in the

organization, with different relations towards CR to gain an optimal P-set that represents the population of

all employees at Schiphol. The last column shows the factor to which each person belongs. People with no

factor did not solely load on one factor, but load on multiple factors and therefore left outside the Q-

methodology after factor rotation.

Nr. Name Function Special Age Gender CR involved

Factor

1 Erik Lagerweij Director 4 m yes 2

2 Denise Pronk Operational CR CO team 2 f yes 2

3 Bob Potter Manager CR CO team 3 m yes 3

4 Michel Feldmann Manager CR CO team 3 m yes 1

5 Ron Lauwerse Director CR Board 4 m yes 1

6 Marcel van Beek Operational 3 m yes 2

7 Berend Onnes Operational 2 m yes 4

8 Rogier Doffegnies Operational 1 m no 1

9 Peter Flierman Operational 1 m no 4

10 Marijn Ornstein Manager CR CO Board 3 f yes 1

11 Ed Koelemeijer Manager 4 m yes 4

12 Listelot Hofkamp Operational 1 f yes 1

13 Thomas vd Plassche Operational 2 m no 3

14 Franc Vink Manager 3 m no 1

15 Maryan Brouwer Operational 3 f no -

16 Lot Frijling Manager 2 f no 1

17 Joost van der Lans Operational 2 m no 4

18 Attila Houthuyse Operational 2 m no 2

19 Sierd Boersma Operational 2 m no -

20 Thyrza Hoogreef Operational 4 f no 4

21 Michiel Vlam Manager CR CO team 3 m yes 1

22 Susan Keulards Operational 2 f no 1

23 Edwin Balkema Manager 3 m no 2

24 Christiaan Hen Operational 1 m no 3

25 Tessa Lange Operational 1 f yes 1

26 Peter van Laarhoven Director CR Board 4 m yes 2

27 Jos Nijhuis Director CEO CR Board 4 m yes 2

28 Jonas van Stekelenburg Manager 3 m yes -

29 Alida van Sprang Operational 3 f yes -

30 Floor Felten Director CR Board 3 f yes 1

31 Birgit Otto Director CR Board 4 f yes 2

32 Wim Mul Director CR Board 4 m yes -

Table A-24: P-set


107

Appendix IV C: Q-sort Distribution Figure A-36 shows the distrubtion on which the statements are ranked varying from mostly disagree (-5) and mostly agree (+5). All cards should be placed on

squares according to the distribution.

Figure A-36: Q-sort distribution

108


Appendix IV D: Correlation Matrix Table A-25 shows the correlation matrix between the Q-sorts of the respondents. So for instance, the Q-sorts of P3 and P6 are correlated with .18. Since

correlations can vary between -1 and +1, whereby +1 is a positive correlation and -1 a negative relation, P3 and P6 are slightly positive correlated. Overall there is

no correlation with a negative value, so the overall attitude at Schiphol is quite positive.

Table A-25: Correlation matrix between Q-sorts


109

Appendix IV E: Unrotated Factor Matrix Table A-26 below shows the unrotated factor matrix. The factor analysis is conducted, but the factors are not

rotated yet. 8 factors are extracted, whereby the first factor is broadly shared within the organization by

explaining 43% of the variance. Most of the Q-sorts of the participants have a positive value on this factor.

All eigenvalues are greater than 1.

Table A-26: Unrotated factor matrix

110


Appendix IV F: Factor scores per Factor The Z-scores of each statement are shown in the figures below. A positive Z-score means agree, while a

negative Z-score means disagree, thereby a higher score means a stronger agree/disagree. The Z-scores are

sorted from highest until lowest score.

Figure A-37: Z-scores factor 1


111


112




113


114


Appendix IV G: Mutual Correlations between Factors Table A-27 below shows the correlations between the factor scores. After factor rotation, four factors are

left and represent a perspective on CR. Correlations between the factor shows that factor 1 and 2 have the

highest correlation, which means that most statements in these factors have the same score in the factor

array. The corresponding perspectives, the communicative believer and the strategic changer, are indeed the

two perspectives with the most overlap and consensus of statements. The smallest correlation is between

factor 2 and 3, but still largely positive. Also this is logical, given the relatively high disagreement between

the strategic changer and the balanced profiteer.

Table A-27: Correlation between factors


115

Appendix IV H: Consensus vs. Disagreement Statements Table A-28 lists the statements with their Q-sort value as in the ideal Q-sort per factor. Furthermore, the

statements are ranked on consensus versus disagreement. At the top of the list the statements with

consensus are listed and by going down the disagreement on statements increases.

Table A-28: Statements ranked on consensus vs. disagreement

116


Appendix IV I: Overview Phase 1

CR Theory Schiphol practice Similarity Difference Q-method Recommendations

Definition Companies with a CR strategy integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with their stakeholders and demonstrate openly their triple P performance (van Marrewijk, 2003).

CR is all about aligning our company’s activities with the social, economic and environmental expectations of our stakeholders. It demands that commercial success be gained through positive practices that aim to promote general welfare. Success, after all, is not only measured in monetary terms but also in the corporation’s impact on the community, on its customers and on the environment

Success is not only based on the economic factor, but also on social and environmental factors

Interaction with stakeholders is important

Both use CR as term

In line with business strategy is not named in Schiphol’s definition

People, planet, profit are not named in these terms

Not relevant Create a clear, consistent definition. For instance: CR is about balancing people, planet and profit in all levels and activities of Schiphol, which are weaved within the business strategy and aligned with stakeholder expectations

Why?

Motives/ Drivers of

CR

Self interest

Financial benefits

To gain a competitive advantage

Increase image/reputation

Doing good for society

Pressure from external stakeholders

Personal esteem from CEO

Social legitimation

Schiphol stands in the middle of society

Aviation’s CO2 contribution

To maintain support for its strategy; just do what is necessary or required.

Social legitimation – license to operate

Position in and contribution to society asks for CR

Mix between self-interest and social obligation

Schiphol is more preventing a bad reputation than creating a good.

No personal esteem CEO

Financial benefits and competitive advantage are underestimated

Revealed different perspectives: difference in saying and doing. Say it is important, but in reality it does not work out.

Focus of CR is on license to operate, although they understand that it should be for license to grow

The mix between self-interest and social obligation is good, but it should not focus on staying in business but on expansion and growth.

Understand the benefits and contribution to a competitive advantage will create a stronger motivation, followed by really grasping the benefits and a competitive advantage


117

How? Strong/inspirational leadership & management agreement

Communication to stakeholders (Open, Complete, Effective, Two-sided)

CR projects: (cost effective, return on investment, centrality, report and monitor progress , balance PPP)

Sectorial approach: Integrated CR / business strategy

Create lively CR culture

Integrated CR and business strategy (clear objectives, all levels of the organization, include in salary of managers, organizational learning)

Apply strategic CR: profit + CR reputation in value chain

Apply Responsive CR: nuisance limitation, comply with laws & regulations, code of conduct, create a CR culture

Align those two with stakeholder expectations

Differentiate between license to operate and license to grow

Created a focus on mobility, work and energy (set targets)

Monitor, quantify and report with 17 KPIs

Integrate in management systems

Founding of theGrounds

Creation of CR Board, CR Core team, CR Ambassadors, CR Guerillas

CR is monitored and reported; but with too many KPIs, on different levels and not SMART

First steps in creating a lively culture; CR Ambassadors, Guerillas

Two-sided communication with stakeholders (Alders-tafel)

Only qualitatively addressing people and planet in decision forms

Strong leadership/ management agreement is absent

People, planet and profit are not balanced in decisions and activities

Sectorial approach is not mentioned

Communication to stakeholders is not open and complete, therefore not effective

Separated strategies

Need for strong leadership/management agreement is urgent

Current approach is good in theory, but not working out in practice

Apply CR in all levels of the organization

Quantify in order to understand

Guidelines for decision forms are needed.

Include the interest of the stakeholders

Create incentives and inspiration from the top, show commitment/importance in clear goals and integrate CR in business strategy; align activities/projects by framing guidelines for the decision and investment process

Awareness is growing, but the action is lacking. Continue with internal initiatives to stimulate the positive vibe of the CR culture.

First internal structure, than external expansion.

What? Increased employee welfare

Safety, pride, performance

Risk reduction Financial benefits

fuel and resource efficiency

Reduced costs

More, new customers

Premium pricing Increased reputation

Loyalty, Trustworthiness

maintain public support Competitive advantage

unique selling propositions,

higher tolerance

license to grow

raise regulatory barriers

first-mover advantage

Theory at Schiphol: CR empowers Schiphol’s strategy and competitive position, inspires employees and creates value for stakeholders. CR creates goodwill and improves stakeholder relationships. Improved reputation (positive media /international know-how/trust). Added value (less costs, more profit). Impact on business culture; positive, increased quality, innovative

Other tariffs for environmental unfriendly airlines

Fair-trade café, airport park are examples of premium prices (Fair-trade) and customers (airport park)

Neighbor-day for public support

Supporting SOSKinderdorpen/Unicef.

Improved work conditions, with ‘nieuwe werken’

Focus on the reputation and competitive advantage is present in theory; creating value for stakeholders = license to grow

Employee welfare and premium prices are represented.

Benefits on the long-term are not known among employees and rewarded from the top.

Reputation is important, but preventing is valued higher than enlarging.

The ‘what’ is underestimated and divided. People don’t know what it is and what to expect. Lack of strategy/vision.

Consensus on benefits: competitive advantage and role in the license to grow

Transfer passengers are not influenced by CR reputation

Raising of regulatory barriers and regulations is doubted

Differentiate between short and long term benefits; make them visible, quantifiable and understandable to employees.

Investments in CR are needed now to gain a competitive advantage in the future

Take a wait-and-see role in the sectorial approach

Continue with premium pricing and attracting new customers by CR. It will pay off.

Table A-29: Overview Phase 1

118


Appendix V: ‘The Balanced Framework’ This appendix contains the foundation for the selection of relevant aspects that are present in the list of

indicators and corresponding units for the each of the planet, people and profit pillars.

Appendix V A: GRI Indicators for Airport Operators The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for Airport Operators consists of ±100 performance indicators in the

categories: environmental, labor practice and decent work, human rights, social and lastly economical. The

GRI is a framework to assists firms in their reporting about sustainability or CR.

Besides the list of indicators, six core indicators are defined in the GRI for Airport Operators:

Total annual number of wildlife strikes per 10,000 aircraft movements.

Number of persons physically or economically displaced, either voluntarily or involuntarily, by the

airport operator or on its behalf by a governmental or other entity, and compensation provided.

Energy saved due to conservation and efficiency improvements.

Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved.

Ambient air quality levels according to pollutant concentrations in microgram per m3 or parts per

million (ppm) by regulatory regime.

Aircraft and pavement de-icing/anti-icing fluid used and treated by m3 and/or tonnes.

Number and percentage change of people residing in areas affected by noise

Below an overview of the different indicators and their aspects are given, based on the GRI version especially

designed for airports.

Environmental Performance Indicators Aspect: Materials EN1 Materials used by weight or volume. EN2 Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materials. Aspect: Energy EN3 Direct energy consumption by primary energy source. EN4 Indirect energy consumption by primary source. EN5 Energy saved due to conservation and efficiency improvements. EN6 Initiatives to provide energy-efficient or renewable energy based products and services, and reductions in energy requirements as a result of these initiatives. EN7 Initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption and reductions achieved. Aspect: Water EN8 Total water withdrawal by source. AO4 Quality of storm water by applicable regulatory standards. EN9 Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water. EN10 Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused. Aspect: Biodiversity EN11 Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to, protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas. EN12 Description of significant impact of products, and services on biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas. EN13 Habitats protected or restored. EN14 Strategies, current actions, and future plans for managing impacts on biodiversity. EN15 Number of IUCN RedList species and national conservation list species with habitats in risk-area Aspect: Emissions, effluents and waste EN16 Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.

Appendix V: ‘The Balanced Framework’

119

EN17 Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight. EN18 Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved. EN19 Emissions of ozone-depleting substances by weight. EN20 NO, SO and other significant air emissions by type and weight. EN21 Total water discharge by quality and destination. EN22 Total weight of waste by type and disposal method. EN23 Total number and volume and significant spills. AO5 Ambient air quality levels according to pollutant concentrations in microgram per m3 or parts per million (ppm) by regulatory regime. AO6 Aircraft and pavement de-icing/anti-icing fluid used and treated by m3 and/or tonnes. EN24 Weight of transported, imported, exported, or treated waste deemed hazardous under the terms of the Basel Convention Annex I, II, III, and VIII, and percentage of transported waste shipped internationally. EN25 Identity, size, protected status, and biodiversity value of water bodies and related Aspect: Products and services EN26 Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products and services, and extent of impact mitigation. EN27 Percentage of products sold and their packaging materials that are reclaimed by category. Aspect: Compliance EN28 Monetary values of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for on compliance with environmental laws and regulations. Aspect: Transport EN29 Significant environmental impacts on transporting products and other goods and materials used for the organization’s operations, and transporting members of the workforce. Aspect: Overall EN30 Total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type. Aspect: Noise AO7 Number and percentage change of people Labor Practices and Decent Work Performance Indicators Aspect: Employment LA1 Total workforce by employment type, employment contract, and region, broken down by gender LA2 Total number and rate of new employee hires and employee turnover by age group, gender, and region. LA3 Benefits provided to full-time employees that are not provided to temporary or part-time employees, by significant locations of operation. LA15 Return to work and retention rates after parental leave, by gender. Aspect: Labor/Management Relations LA4 Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. LA5 Minimum notice period(s) regarding operational changes, including whether it is specified in collective agreements. Aspect: Occupational Health and Safety LA6 Percentage of total workforce represented in formal joint management–worker health and safety committees that help monitor and advice on occupational health and safety programs. LA7 Rates of injury, occupational diseases, lost days, and absenteeism, and total number of work-related fatalities, by region and by gender. LA8 Education, training, counseling, prevention, and risk-control programs in place to assist workforce members, their families, or community members regarding serious diseases. LA9 Health and safety topics covered in formal agreements with trade unions. Aspect: Training and Education LA10 Average hours of training per year per employee by gender, and by employee category. LA11 Programs for skills management and lifelong learning that support the continued employability of employees and assist them in managing career endings. LA12 Percentage of employees receiving regular performance and career development reviews, by gender. Aspect: Diversity and Equal Opportunity LA13 Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per employee category according to gender, age group, minority group membership, and other indicators of diversity.

120


Aspect: Equal remuneration for women and men LA14 Ratio of basic salary and remuneration of women to men by employee category, by significant locations of operation. Human Rights Performance Indicators Aspect: Investment and Procurement Practices HR1 Percentage and total number of significant investment agreements and contracts that include clauses incorporating human rights concerns, or that have undergone human rights screening. HR2 Percentage of significant suppliers, contractors, and other business partners that have undergone human rights screening, and actions taken. HR3 Total hours of employee training on policies and procedures concerning aspects of human rights that are relevant to operations, including the percentage of employees trained. Aspect: Non-discrimination HR4 Total number of incidents of discrimination and corrective actions taken. Aspect: Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining HR5 Operations and significant suppliers identified in which the right to exercise freedom of association and collective bargaining may be violated or at significant risk, and actions taken to support these rights. Aspect: Child Labor HR6 Operations and significant suppliers identified as having significant risk for incidents of child labor, and measures taken to contribute to the effective abolition of child labor. Aspect: Forced and Compulsory Labor HR7 Operations and significant suppliers identified as having significant risk for incidents of forced or compulsory labor, and measures to contribute to the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor. Aspect: Security Practices HR8 Percentage of security personnel trained in the organization’s policies or procedures concerning aspects of human rights that are relevant to operations. Aspect: Indigenous Rights HR9 Total number of incidents of violations involving rights of indigenous people and actions taken. Aspect: Assessment HR10 Percentage and total number of operations that have been subject to human rights reviews and/or impact assessments. Aspect: Remediation HR11 Number of grievances related to human rights filed, addressed and resolved through formal grievance mechanisms. Society Performance Indicators Aspect: Local Communities SO1 Percentage of operations with implemented local community engagement, impact assessments, and development programs. SO9 Operations with significant potential or actual negative impacts on local communities. SO10 Prevention and mitigation measures implemented in operations with significant potential or actual negative impacts on local communities. AO8 Number of persons physically or economically displaced, either voluntarily or involuntarily, by the airport operator or on its behalf by a governmental or other entity, and compensation provided. Aspect: Corruption SO2 Percentage and total number of business units analyzed for risks related to corruption. SO3 Percentage of employees trained in organization’s anti-corruption policies and procedures. SO4 Actions taken in response to incidents of corruption. Aspect: Public Policy SO5 Public policy positions and participation in public policy development and lobbying. SO6 Total value of financial and in-kind contributions to political parties, politicians, and related institutions by country. Aspect: Anti-Competitive Behavior


121

SO7 Total number of legal actions for anticompetitive behavior, anti-trust, and monopoly practices and their outcomes. Aspect: Compliance SO8 Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for noncompliance with laws and regulations. Product Responsibility Performance Indicators Aspect: Customer Health and Safety PR1 Life cycle stages in which health and safety impacts of products and services are assessed for improvement, and percentage of significant products and services categories subject to such procedures. PR2 Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes concerning health and safety impacts of products and services during their life cycle, by type of outcomes. AO9 Total annual number of wildlife strikes per 10,000 aircraft movements. Aspect: Product and Service Labeling PR3 Type of product and service information required by procedures and percentage of significant products and services subject to such information requirements. PR4 Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes concerning product and service information and labeling, by type of outcomes. PR5 Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction. Aspect: Marketing Communications Core PR6 Programs for adherence to laws, standards, and voluntary codes related to marketing communications, including advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. PR7 Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes concerning marketing communications, including advertising, promotion, and sponsorship by type of outcomes. Aspect: Customer Privacy PR8 Total number of substantiated complaints regarding breaches of customer privacy and losses of customer data. Aspect: Compliance PR9 Monetary value of significant fines for noncompliance with laws and regulations concerning the provision and use of products and services.

122


Appendix V B: UN-Guidelines Guidelines by the United Nations (UN) of Sustainable Development are listed in Table A-30 below. The

Commission on sustainable development designed a list of indictors to evaluate the progress on

sustainability by governments. The 14 themes have around 50 indicators. The level of the themes is again

useful for the scaling process.


123

Table A-30: UN Indicators

124


Appendix V C: Sustainable Footprint Methodology The Sustainable Footprint Methodology provides several indicators on planet, people and profit in the field

of project management. This framework is based on the GRI, UN Guidelines and the framework by

Labuschagne and Brent, World Wildlife Fund Principles and Sweden’s Environmental Objectives. Besides the

framework itself, the last three named frameworks are also presented.

For more detailed information on the indicators and their units, you are referred to the thesis: ‘The

Sustainable Footprint Methodology’ by I. Oehlmann which can be found at the repository of the TU Delft

(url: http://repository.tudelft.nl/).

Figure A-41: The Sustainable Footprint Framework


125

The framework by Laubuschagne and Brent splits the CR strategy in operational and social initiatives. Social

initiatives are there but do not deliver value to the firm, therefore the focus is on the operational initiatives.

Here once again the division between planet, people and profit is made whereby the aspects on level 4 give

an overview of relevant aspects per pillar.

Figure A-42: Framework by Labuschagne and Brent

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) principles for sustainability are 10 principles which are mostly related to the

planet aspect.

Sweden’s Environmental Objectives: the 16 objectives are designed by the Swedish government to measure

with more than 100 underlying national indicators the quality and state of the environment on the long-

term.

126


Together with the aspects of level 4 by the framework of Labuschagne & Brent and the main themes of the

UN guidelines they are listed in Table A-31. This table provides an overview of the relevant indicators which

are more or less on the same level as the 17 CR themes of Schiphol. Having them on the same level is

required to more easily improve the 17 themes and is more valuable for Schiphol in implementing

adjustments. Furthermore, the employees are familiar with this level which smoothens the implementation

of the new framework.

Sweden’s Environmental Objectives

WWF Principles Labuschagne & Brent UN Guidelines

1. Reduced Climate Impact 1. Zero Carbon 1. Financial Health 1. Poverty

2. Clean Air 2. Zero Waste 2. Economic performance

2. Natural hazards

3. Natural Acidification Only 3. Sustainable Transport

3. Potential financial benefits

3. Economic development

4. A Non-Toxic Environment 4. Sustainable Materials

4. Air resources 4. Governance

5. A Protective Ozone Layer 5. Sustainable Food 5. Water resources 5. Atmosphere

6. A Safe Radiation Environment

6. Sustainable Water

6. Land resources 6. Global economic partnership

7. Zero Eutrophication 7. Habitats and Wildlife

7. Energy & Health resources

7. Health

8. Flourishing Lakes and Streams

8. Culture and Heritage

8. Mineral & Energy resources

8. Land

9. Good-Quality Groundwater

9. Equity and Fair Trade

9. Internal human resources

9. Consumption and production patterns

10. A Balanced Marine Environment, Flourishing Coastal Areas and archipelagos

10. Health and Happiness

10. External population

10. Education

11. Thriving Wetlands 11. Stakeholder participation

11. Oceans, seas and coasts

12. Sustainable Forests 12. Macro social performance

12. Demographics

13. A Varied Agricultural Landscape

13. Freshwater

14. A Magnificent Mountain Landscape

14. Biodiversity

15. A Good Built Environment

16. A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life

Table A-31: Overview of aspects


127

Appendix V D: Schiphol KPIs and Themes The 17 CR-themes of Schiphol and underlying KPIs are shown in Table A-32. The current themes show the focus of Schiphol and employees are familiar with them.

The other columns show which strategic action or CR KPI correspond to each theme as defined by the CR Board and as monitored by PwC in the annual report.

Table A-32: CR-themes Schiphol

128


Appendix VI: Conjoint Analysis This appendix shows the used schemes and tools to perform the conjoint analysis in phase 3. Besides it lists

an extensive version of the results.

Appendix VI A: Basic Plan 2 The basic plan that is used to design the fractional designs is presented in Table A-33below. The first four

columns are used, since the attributes all have three attribute levels.

BASIC PLAN 2: 34; 2

4; 9 trials

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0

0 2 2 1 0 0 0 1

1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0

1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0

2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0

Table A-33: Basic Plan 2

Appendix VI: Conjoint Analysis

129

Appendix VI B: Effect-coding The attribute levels are effect-coded according to this scheme. It also shows how the part worth utility is

calculated, by the two indicators of each attribute (variable).

Attribute level

indicator variable 1

(X11)

indicator variable 2

(X12)

Part worth utility

0 1 0 b11

1 0 1 b12

2 -1 -1 -b11-b12

param.: b11 b12

130


Figure A-43: Effect-coding scheme

This scheme is applied to the experiment, which gives the results in Table A-34.

Attribute Level Code Indicator 1 Indicator 2

Ticket price [euro] TP1 TP2

€ 500 0 1 0

€ 600 1 0 1

€ 700 2 -1 -1

Transfer time [hour] TT1 TT2

1 hours 0 1 0

2 hours 1 0 1

3 hours 2 -1 -1

Airport Quality AQ1 AQ2

Poor 0 1 0

Average 1 0 1

Excellent 2 -1 -1

CR Reputation Airport CR1 CR2

Poor 0 1 0

Average 1 0 1

Excellent 2 -1 -1 Table A-34: Attributes and indicators

Appendix VI C: Questionnaire for Transfer Passenger This is the questionnaire that was used to gather the data among transfer passengers.

Survey on Corporate Responsibility (CR)

Thanks for taking some time to participate in this survey. First some background questions will be asked

afterwards the choice-experiment will be introduced.

Are you changing flights on this airport? □ Yes □ No

Gender? □ Male □ Female

What is your year of birth? ….

What is your purpose of travelling? □ Business □ Leisure □ Both □ Other

Sustainability (The livability of the planet and availability of its resources for future generations) plays a role in my normal life decisions:

□ Strongly Disagree □ Slightly Disagree □ Neutral □ Slightly Agree □ Strongly Agree

Imagine you are on a fictitious flight from A to B via C. As a transfer passenger you can choose between two different airports for connecting flights, C1 or C2, as you can see in the scheme below.

The choice of the airport for connecting flights has an effect on the following attributes:

Ticket price: The price for the total trip in euros. Transfer time: The total time of stay at the airport (C1 or C2) for connecting flights. Airport Quality: The overall quality of the airport (C1 or C2) for connecting flights. Think about

convenience, shops, looks, possibilities. CR Reputation: The airport reputation of the airport on Corporate Responsibility, like balancing planet,

people and profit in its activities/strategy. By making the choice for your preferred airport (C1 or C2) for connecting flights, you can assume that all other aspects, like the quality of the airlines and flight time are equal and out of scope.

Example: Airport C1

Airport C2 Ticket price [euro] 700 Ticket price [euro] 500

Transfer time [hour] 1 hour Transfer time [hour] 3 hours Airport Quality Poor Airport Quality Excellent CR Reputation Airport Excellent CR Reputation Airport Average

Your choice: vs.

132


Please fill in your choice for the preferred airport (C1 or C2) for connecting flights:

Choice 1 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 3 hours Transfer time [hour] 3 hours Airport Quality Poor Airport Quality Excellent CR Reputation Airport Excellent CR Reputation Airport Average

Your choice: vs.

Choice 2 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 1 hour Transfer time [hour] 2 hours Airport Quality Excellent Airport Quality Excellent CR Reputation Airport Excellent CR Reputation Airport Poor

Your choice: vs.

Choice 3 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 2 hours Transfer time [hour] 1 hour Airport Quality Average Airport Quality Poor CR Reputation Airport Excellent CR Reputation Airport Poor

Your choice: vs.

Choice 4 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 3 hours Transfer time [hour] 2 hours Airport Quality Excellent Airport Quality Poor CR Reputation Airport Average CR Reputation Airport Average

Your choice: vs.

Choice 5 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 2 hours Transfer time [hour] 2 hours Airport Quality Excellent Airport Quality Average CR Reputation Airport Poor CR Reputation Airport Excellent

Your choice: vs.

Choice 6 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 1 hour Transfer time [hour] 1 hour Airport Quality Poor Airport Quality Average CR Reputation Airport Poor CR Reputation Airport Average

Your choice: vs.

Choice 7 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 3 hours Transfer time [hour] 3 hours Airport Quality Average Airport Quality Poor CR Reputation Airport Poor CR Reputation Airport Excellent

Your choice: vs.

Choice 8 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 2 hours Transfer time [hour] 3 hours Airport Quality Poor Airport Quality Average CR Reputation Airport Average CR Reputation Airport Poor

Your choice: vs.

Choice 9 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 1 hour Transfer time [hour] 1 hour Airport Quality Average Airport Quality Excellent CR Reputation Airport Average CR Reputation Airport Excellent

Your choice: vs.

Choice 10 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 1 hour Transfer time [hour] 3 hours Airport Quality Average Airport Quality Poor CR Reputation Airport Excellent CR Reputation Airport Excellent

Your choice: vs.

Choice 11 Airport C1


Transfer time [hour] 3 hours Transfer time [hour] 1 hour Airport Quality Average Airport Quality Excellent CR Reputation Airport Poor CR Reputation Airport Excellent

Your choice: vs.

Finally, I would like you to give your opinion of this survey by answering the following questions:

The questions in the survey were clear:


The choices for different airports are corresponding with reality:


It was hard to choose between different airports:


Thanks for your cooperation!

Have a nice connecting flight!

134


Appendix VI D: Biogeme Files Two files for the software program Biogeme are required: a .dat and a .mod file.

The input of the .dat-file is the data from the questionnaires. The column NR. contains the respondent

number, which each has 9 choices (column SET). In the column CHOICE the choice made by the respondent

for airport C1 (=1) or C2 (=2) is inserted. The column CONST is always 1, since it is assumed that the constant

is 1 in the model. The next 16 columns contain the effect-coding of the attributes. The last two columns AV1

and AV2 tell that the alternatives are available in the choice-set.

Figure A-44: The .dat-file

The .mod-file contains the estimators of the model. These are the alternative specific constant (asc1 and

asc2) and beta 1 till beta 8 representing the attribute variables. Then the utility functions are defined for the

two choices, with both contain the variables linked to the specific choice. The full function is given in Figure

A-46. The last thing that is defined in the .mod-file is that the model of use is an MNL model.

Figure A-45: The .mod-file

Figure A-46: Utility function

Both of the files were entered in Biogeme, after which the following results are obtained.

Figure A-47: Output Biogeme

136


Appendix VI E: Results of the State-choice Experiment This appendix lists the other results of the conjoint analysis, besides the ones presented in the main report.

The first is an overview of the estimated values of the indicators in Table A-35. Thereby only TP1 is

significant.

Indicator Name Value t-test Significant

asc1 -0.00803 -0.00 *

asc2 0.00803 0.00 *

TP1 beta1 2.07 10.23 -

TP2 beta2 -0.186 -0.00 *

TT1 beta3 2.33 0.00 *

TT2 beta4 0.277 0.00 *

AQ1 beta5 -1.48 -0.00 *

AQ2 beta6 0.736 0.00 *

CR1 beta7 -0.357 -0.00 *

CR2 beta8 -0.368 -0.00 * Table A-35: Indicator values and significance

Table A-36 shows the analytical design that is based on the effect-coding scheme and used for the analysis.

PRF TP1 TP2 TT1 TT2 AQ1 AQ2 CR1 CR2

1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

2 1 0 0 1 0 1 -1 -1

3 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 1

4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

5 0 1 0 1 -1 -1 -1 -1

6 0 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 0

7 -1 -1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1

8 -1 -1 0 1 1 0 1 0

9 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 1 0 1

10 -1 -1 1 0 0 1 -1 -1

11 1 0 -1 -1 0 1 1 0 Table A-36: Analytical design

The next table, Table A-37, shows the part worth utilities of a specific alternative. According to the effect-

coding scheme the part worth utility for a choice is defined as the sum of the utilities of the attribute levels

on which the choice consists.

Basic Plan 2: 3^4 Trials

Choice TP TT AQ CR Part worth utility

1 0 0 0 0 2.56

2 0 1 1 2 3.81

3 0 2 2 1 -0.16

4 1 0 1 1 2.51

5 1 1 2 0 0.48

6 1 2 0 2 -3.55

7 2 0 2 2 1.92

8 2 1 0 1 -3.46

9 2 2 1 0 -4.11

10 2 0 1 2 1.91

11 0 2 1 0 -0.16 Table A-37: Part worth utilities

The total utility of an alternative is the sum of the attribute utilities belonging to that alternative. This is

presented in Table A-38. It shows the probabilities that a transfer passenger will choose for airport C1 or C2,

which are the alternatives. The last two choices represent the estimates for the hold-out sets, which are

used to verify the model.

choice C1 C2 p C1 p C2 % C1 % C2

1 6 3 0.03 0.97 3% 97%

2 7 5 0.81 0.19 81% 19%

3 2 1 0.77 0.23 77% 23%

4 3 8 0.96 0.04 96% 4%

5 5 2 0.03 0.97 3% 97%

6 1 4 0.51 0.49 51% 49%

7 9 6 0.36 0.64 36% 64%

8 8 9 0.65 0.35 65% 35%

9 4 7 0.64 0.36 64% 36%

10 10 6 1.00 0.00 100% 0%

11 11 7 0.11 0.89 11% 89% Table A-38: Utility per alternative

The next tables present the analysis of the backgrounds of the respondents and the results of the extra

questions to define 1) the role of sustainability in the normal-life of a respondent and 2) the clearness, reality

and difficulty of the questions.

138


N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Birth year 47 1942 1990 1975.32 11.710

Sustainable 53 0 5 3.62 1.042

Clear 53 3 5 4.49 .724

Reality 53 2 5 3.96 .831

Difficult 53 1 5 2.94 1.117

Valid N (list wise) 47

Table A-39: Descriptive statistics of the questionnaire

Connecting Gender Birth year Purpose Sustainable Clear Reality Difficult

N Valid 53 53 47 53 53 53 53 53

Missing 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0

Table A-40: Missing values

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid no 4 7.5 7.5 7.5

yes 49 92.5 92.5 100.0

Total 53 100.0 100.0

Table A-41: Connecting flights


Valid female 20 37.7 37.7 37.7

male 33 62.3 62.3 100.0

Total 53 100.0 100.0

Table A-42: Gender


Valid business 23 43.4 43.4 43.4

leisure 24 45.3 45.3 88.7

o 6 11.3 11.3 100.0

Total 53 100.0 100.0

Table A-43: Type of passenger


Valid 0 1 1.9 1.9 1.9

slightly disagree 5 9.4 9.4 11.3

neutral 17 32.1 32.1 43.4

slightly agree 19 35.8 35.8 79.2

strongly agree 11 20.8 20.8 100.0

Total 53 100.0 100.0

Table A-44: The role of sustainability in normal-life decisions


Valid neutral 7 13.2 13.2 13.2


strongly agree 33 62.3 62.3 100.0

Total 53 100.0 100.0

Table A-45: Clearness of the questions


Valid slightly disagree 2 3.8 3.8 3.8

neutral 13 24.5 24.5 28.3


strongly agree 15 28.3 28.3 100.0

Total 53 100.0 100.0

Table A-46: Reality of the choices


Valid strongly disagree 7 13.2 13.2 13.2

slightly disagree 11 20.8 20.8 34.0

neutral 15 28.3 28.3 62.3


strongly agree 2 3.8 3.8 100.0

Total 53 100.0 100.0

Table A-47: Difficulty to choose

140


Sunset departure Boeing 737 (source: http://www.aircraft-wallpaper.com)

Balancing People, Planet and Profit:

An analysis of the impact of Corporate Responsibility on the policy and strategy at Schiphol

Luco Overvoorde April 2012

Balancing People, Planet and Profit at Schiphol - TU Delft ...

Documents

Transcript of Balancing People, Planet and Profit at Schiphol - TU Delft ...