INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

AHMEDABAD

Term Paper Assignment

The Conscientious Employee

Making, enabling and mobilizing socially responsible employees

Submitted to

Prof. Manjari Singh & Prof. Biju Varkkey

In Partial fulfillment of the requirements of course

Foundations of HRM

Submitted on: September 18th, 2014

By

Shiva Kakkar

The page has been intentionally left blank

The Conscientious Employee

Making, enabling and mobilizing socially responsible employees

Shiva Kakkar

‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (CSR) is today a buzzword in the business world.

Organizations have realized that CSR presents a host of intangible benefits for the firm in terms

of positive public perception and increased business opportunities. The key to the success of any

CSR strategy is the active participation of all stakeholders. Out of all stakeholders, the

employees form the biggest stakeholder group with tremendous social and environmental impact.

Therefore, without their participation, the CSR strategy cannot succeed. The objective of the

paper is to understand and answer three fundamental aspects of employee participation in CSR:

1. Why CSR is a matter for collective interest for both employers and employees. 2. How does an

organization enable employee participation in CSR? 3. What is the role of the HR department in

employee mobilization and overall CSR strategy?

“We do not claim to be more unselfish, more generous or more philanthropic than other people.

But we think we started on sound and straightforward business principles, considering the

interests of the shareholders our own, and the health and welfare of the employees, the sure

foundation of our success.” - Jamsetji Tata, founder of the Tata group.

These words by Jamsetji Tata, founder of the Tata group, succinctly capture the sentiment of

business and its responsibilities towards the larger social environment in which it operates. It is

notable that Jamsetji Tata held this view much before the advent of the modern concept of

‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (CSR). Back in 1917, the Tata group was the first in the world

to commission a modern pension system, worker’s compensation, maternity benefits and profit

sharing plans for its employees. Jamsetji’s philosophy of ‘giving back to the society’ went on to

form the core business ethic of the Tata group, based upon which it has acquired tremendous

goodwill and respect among the Indian populace today. Many of Tata group’s employee policies

went on to serve as a foundation for the social security framework laid by the Indian

Constitution. At the time of inception, these voluntary provisions by the Tata’s could have very

well been termed as part of their CSR, since they were not mandated by the British law to do so.

The case of Tata’s illustrates how conscientious business can build a sustainable future for itself

as well as the society surrounding it by fulfilling its social responsibilities. Also, it is one of the

first and only instances in the world wherein ‘social responsibility’ has served as a differentiating

factor for a business corporation, lending it a respectful and distinct identity among its peers.

The origin of ‘Corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) as a stream of study can be attributed to

Howard R. Bowen whose book ‘Social Responsibilities of the Businessman’ serves as the first

known literature over the subject (Archie B Carroll, 1999). While Bowen initiated the study in

the subject, the first precise definition of Corporate Social Responsibility came from William C.

Frederick, who defined it as follows:

‘Social responsibility means that businessmen should oversee the operation of an economic

system that fulfills the expectations of the public. And this means in turn that the economy’s

means of production should be employed in such a way that production and distribution should

enhance total socio-economic welfare’ (Frederick, 1994).

A major role in bringing CSR to the world stage was played by the Washington DC based think-

tank CED (Committee for Economic Development). In its seminal statement issued in June

1971, CED put forth the value proposition of CSR in front of corporations. It observed,

‘Business must play a greater role in national community. They should resolve all inherent

conflicts with human values and the surrounding social environment and aim to work with social

and governmental institutions for a sustainable future (Allen, 1971)’.

CED proposed the concept of ‘Enlightened self-interest’ to explain the benefits of corporate

social responsibility to businesses. The concept can be understood from the classical viewpoint

of the ‘Buy vs. Build’ concept of human resources. A myopic organization may prefer to buy

resources from the market on the short term and train them extensively to be utilized in the

organization. This is a phenomenon rampant in many services sector industries. On the other

hand, another organization may prefer to partner with graduation schools (and colleges) and try

to impart the required skills in an academic environment. This way, it can enhance the quality of

pedagogy and at the same time, assure a sustained supply of quality manpower. This approach

works to its own benefit and the society as a whole. Such an organization would be termed as an

‘enlightened self-interested’ organization which through its interests profits both - itself and the

community. The CED doctrine inherently assumes that if businesses do not accept a fair measure

of responsibility for social improvement, the interests of the corporation will be jeopardized in

the future (Archie B Carroll, 1999).

The doctrine by CED gave special attention to employees and their social responsibility as

stakeholders of the organization. CSR is not a one-man-job and it involves extensive

participation from employees (Ciprian-Dumitru, 2013). CED realized this and made specific

observations regarding employee contribution to CSR. It observed,

‘Large corporations like GE and GM employ more than one million people. These employees

are dependent on the organization for their livelihood. On the other hand, these employees wield

considerable power inside organizations through their skills or through labor unions and exert

great influence on community affairs’ (Allen, 1971).

An ‘organization’ by definition is an ‘organized setup of people’, the majority of which are

employees. A major part of population is involved in some kind of work with small or big

organizations. Employees form the first point of contact of the organization with society. Being

the primary stakeholders, it is important that employees whole-heartedly engage in CSR

activities. The agenda of this paper is to study why employees should participate in CSR

initiatives and how organizations and HR departments can create a conducive environment for

their participation. The structure of the paper is divided into three topics that build upon each

other:

The importance of CSR: A matter of collective interest for employers and employees

The conscientious employee: Assuring active employee engagement in CSR

The CSR-HRM mix: The critical role of HRM as a mediator and facilitator to CSR

1. CSR: A matter of collective interest for employers and employees

Research suggests that CSR enhances the company’s image and the employees’ positive

perception of the company. According to Stawiski (2010), the employees’ perception of

the corporation’s concern for community and environment is significantly linked to their

organizational commitment. This is because the employee’s personal identity is closely

linked to the organization’s identity and a positive association between the two enhances

the individual employee’s pride. Brammer (2007) explains this through the use of

‘Social-identity theory’. Social-identity theory states that individuals see themselves as

members of social groups (organizations are also social groups). Belonging to a social

group establishes and enhances the individual’s self-worth and positive self-concept. The

individual compares the characteristics of his or her group with other groups. If the

person perceives his or her group better off than the rival group, the individual’s own

self-worth increases leading to a positive self-concept (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Brammer

et al., 2007). In an organizational context, this means that the individual is more willing

to work with the organization and engage in its activities provided it’s well-respected

among his/her peers. High levels of engagement are positively linked to better work

performance on the job (Zhang, Fan, & Zhu, 2014)

Being positively perceived by employees is tremendously advantageous for the

employers. In a research on organizational attractiveness by Turban & Greening (1997),

the researchers found that businesses with a better record of corporate social performance

attracted larger number of potential applicants. Applicants perceived such organizations

to be more ethical and morally upright. Therefore, socially responsible organizations

have the advantage of having a larger applicant pool to select from, giving them a

competitive advantage over their peers. This is synonymous to the resource based view of

competitive advantage (Barney, 1995). Resource based view states that resources which

are valuable, inimitable, rare and non-substitutable provide sustained competitive

advantage to the business. It can be argued from the case above that CSR acts as a

differentiator and can provide a sustained competitive advantage by enabling

organizations to attract quality talent (Brammer et al., 2007; Surroca, Tribó, & Waddock,

2010). This is very much apparent in the case of Tata group which draws large number of

applicants from all parts of the country and is often looked upon as a prestigious

organization to work with.

While attracting talent is one part of the game, retaining talent is another activity that

demands considerable efforts. It is interesting to note that CSR has a positive effect on

talent retention. Jones (2010) found that increased organizational commitment emerging

from CSR resulted into higher retention, lower absenteeism and increased performance.

Glavas & Kelly (2014) state that CSR has a positive correlation with organizational

commitment and job satisfaction. According to them, organizational commitment is a

result of the perceived ‘work meaningfulness’ imbibed by CSR into the job. Employees

derive meaningfulness not only from the act of working with the organization, but also by

observing how the organization is making a social impact on the community surrounding

them. If the community holds a good view of the organization and its initiatives, the

employees’ faith that the organization is working towards greater social good is

reaffirmed and they find their work to be meaningful. (Grant, 2008; Pratt & Ashforth,

2007; Rosso, 2010 as cited in Glavas & Kelley, 2014).

Similar studies relating corporate social responsibility with increased organizational

commitment and job satisfaction were done in Taiwan by Hsieh and Chan (2012)

wherein 250 top Taiwanese firms were surveyed. The hypothesis was that CSR effort has

a positive effect on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Hsieh and Chan

arrived at similar conclusions. The interesting part is that both Hsieh & Chan (2012) and

Glavas & Kelly (2014) made observations about the role of CSR as a mediator between

organizational justice and employee perception. The question of justice arises from the

fact that employees continuously try to infer how the organization treats them with

respect to others. In organizational behavior terms this is known as ‘distributive justice’

(Greenberg & Baron, 2008). CSR provides an opportunity to witness first-hand the

organization in action over its commitments. If the organization indulges in socially

responsible and just behavior, the employee’s sense of identity and belongingness for the

organization is enhanced (Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006). The employee

tries to ascertain the organization’s behavior and treatment of him/herself by observing its

behavior with other individuals/entities. This reaffirms Brammer’s (2007) findings cited

earlier that individuals prefer to belong to social groups that affirm to their values and

which enhance their self-concept.

CSR also influences employee attitudes by motivating them and giving them the

opportunity to speak their minds which helps in generating new ideas and corporate

practices. The knowledge and engagement derived from these activities differentiates a

firm’s human capital from its peers and acts as a source of sustained competitive

advantage (Surroca et al., 2010).

2. The conscientious employee: Assuring active employee engagement in

CSR

The previous section elucidated on the inherent potential of CSR to act as a differentiator

by providing meaningfulness and value to work. While CSR can be a source of

sustainable competitive advantage, a more fundamental question is how to mobilize

employees into CSR participation? For an organization it is not only sufficient that

employees understand CSR but rather become active advocates of CSR. The fact that

employees perceive CSR as important is apparent from the research conducted by Towers

Perrin in 2007 which lists ‘social responsibility’ as one of the top 10 engagement drivers.

Figure 1: Towers Perrin 2007 Global Workforce Study (as cited in Europe, 2010)

Rather than mandating people to engage in CSR, the trick is to use CSR as an

engagement tool in itself. For this, it is important to communicate the sincerity and value

of CSR initiatives to the employees. In order to actively engage employees in CSR, the

following steps must be taken by the organization:

1. Communicating Value

A CSR-Europe report (2010) aptly titled ‘Internal CSR communication and employee

engagement’ cites communication as the primary engagement tool in CSR activities.

The report (2010) states that though CSR is one of the most important factors

stimulating employee engagement, until the value of organization’s CSR policies is

conveyed to the employees, they would not participate in CSR activities. In order to

communicate effectively, four modes have been suggested:

1. Education: The organization must reiterate its commitment through training,

workshops and seminars to ensure proper understanding of the goals and

objectives of its social responsibility initiatives.

2. Volunteering activities: Employees must be given a chance to volunteer in CSR

activities so as to get a hands-on approach and a deeper understanding of the

initiatives.

3. Individual participation: Apart from formal education and volunteering activities,

individuals must be encouraged to share their ideas on process improvement,

environmental issues, etc. through informal groups and meetings, casual clubs and

impromptu conversations. The objective is to use the meets for idea generation

and implementation.

4. Employee feedback: CSR is not a one-way, top-down approach. Participation of

employees is crucial to a successful CSR strategy. Hence surveys, focus group

interviews and discussions should be organized to let employees share their

feedback in order to improve the CSR strategy.

Communication regarding CSR is not just routine information dissemination but a co-

ordinated activity with the strategic objective of communicating value. The facts

stated should be credible and trustworthy in order to build confidence in the

employees. Accordingly, a proper communication strategy is required to cater to

employee expectations. One strategy is to communicate CSR at two levels, namely: 1.

Expert CSR communication and 2. Endorsed CSR communication (Morsing, Schultz,

& Nielsen, 2008).

1. Expert CSR Communication: Expert communication is aimed at employees and

stakeholders who already possess sound knowledge of CSR and the firm’s

initiatives and are essentially interested in learning about the organization’s

participation in such activities. The communication is more scientific in nature,

involving facts, figures and statistics to explain the impact of CSR activities.

Internal advertising, research findings, websites, email are preferred ways for

expert CSR communication.(Morsing et al., 2008)

2. Endorsed CSR Communication: Endorsed CSR communication uses third parties

like media, certification authorities, rating agencies, etc. to communicate the CSR

achievements/initiatives of the organization to the general public. Endorsed

communication is often simpler in nature and explained in layman terms so as to

achieve maximum publicity. For employees, it is effective as less knowledgeable

(or less aware) workers not well versed with the concepts of CSR can be easily

made to understand its value through this mode. Also, third party endorsements

reassure employees of the legitimacy and credibility of CSR activities.(Morsing et

al., 2008)

In a worldwide study of CSR initiatives at CSC Energy Corporation, the researchers

concluded that CSR should ideally follow an ‘inside-out’ approach (Bolton Sharon,

2011). An ‘inside-out’ approach means that CSR initiatives (including

communication) should be well translated and explained to employees first and

customers/public later. CSR communication begins at home by taking the employees

into confidence first as they are the primary stakeholders. As an example of expert

communication, CSC Energy, in addition to publishing sustainability reports for

stakeholders and the government, publishes a special ‘Sustainability Review for Staff’

report for employees. The importance of communication can be judged by the

following comment of a senior functionary of CSC (as cited in Bolton Sharon, 2011):

‘Without the internal stakeholder’s consensus and achievement of the work, whatever

and however you raise your voice on CSR to externals, it is all a castle in the air.

Because, who basically ‘implements’ CSR to externals is the employee. (Vice

President, CSC, Korea, 2007)’

2. Motivating employees

Bolton’s study of CSC Energy gives important cues on how to motivate employees to

participate in CSR initiatives. Foremost, in order to be perceived trustworthy and

credible to the external stakeholders, the organization must behave in a trustworthy

and credible manner with the internal stakeholders. As discussed earlier, employees

(the internal stakeholders) tend to make moral judgments about the firm by

comparing its behavior with themselves and others. According to Bolton (2011), the

objective of CSR is to create a ‘moral-community’ out of the whole organization. If

an organization tries to act as a morally upright firm outside but mistreats its own

employees, it would be judged as hypocritical and would not garner any support from

employees. Ethical treatment of employees is the most important characteristic in

order to prepare employees for participation in CSR (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014).

In fact, Morsing (2008) cites Reputation Institute’s industry wide study of Danish

firms in which nearly half the respondents rated ‘ethical employee treatment’ as a

social responsibility in itself for the owners of the firm. If employees are expected to

behave in an ethical and socially responsible manner, then they need to be reassured

that the organization would itself stick to the ethical framework it preaches (Collier &

Esteban, 2007).

Given that an organization is ethical, setting up a culture of ethical and responsible

behavior for employees is the job of senior management and leadership (Chen &

Hung-Baesecke, 2014). The managers (or leaders) need to act as role models for

ethical and socially responsible corporate citizens in order to illicit the same

behaviors from the employees. Carroll (1991) in his seminal work ‘The Pyramid of

Corporate Social Responsibility’ explains that ‘moral managers’ are the most

important factor in building a culture of social responsibility. According to Carroll,

there are three kinds of managers:

1. Immoral managers: Immoral managers have little or no concern for employees.

For them, human resources are factors of production, meant to be used, exploited

and manipulated.

2. Amoral managers: Such managers are neither immoral nor moral. They accord

little respect to employees and fulfill requirements of employee treatment only to

the extent as mandated by law.

3. Moral managers: Moral managers consider employees as contributors to

organization’s objectives and treat them with dignity and respect. They believe in

a consultative/participative approach. They try to build trust and ensure

commitment and consider it as a reciprocal activity.

CSR in any organization cannot take off without moral managers who are able to take

all the stakeholders into confidence, especially employees. The manager’s advocacy

of CSR initiatives is a major motivator for participation in employees. A credible and

trustworthy manager would be believed and followed by one and all (Chen & Hung-

Baesecke, 2014).

On a pan-organizational level, this duology between the manager’s (and/or

leadership’s) behavior and employee behavior is well explained by the ‘Double

pyramid’ model proposed by Ciprian and Dumitru (2013). The organization’s

objectives should be aligned with those of the employees’ to ensure their

participation. The ‘Double pyramid’ model juxtaposes Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

pyramid with Carroll’s pyramid of CSR.

Figure 2: Maslow’s pyramid vs. Carroll’s CSR pyramid (adapted from Archie B. Carroll,

1991; Ciprian-Dumitru, 2013)

According to Ciprian and Dumitru (2013), the basic idea behind this juxtaposition is that if the

employees follow Maslow’s pyramid and the organization follows the CSR pyramid, moral

behavior would automatically result without conscious effort. The underlying thought is that

there should be complete sync between the organization and individual’s expectations. If the

organization is profitable and fulfills its mandated legal, ethical and social responsibilities, the

employees’ physiological and safety needs would automatically be taken care off. The

employees’ in-turn would develop a sense of belongingness and pride working for the

organization. If the organization is ethical, grants all employee rights and takes care of them (and

their families) employees too would work enthusiastically and participate in its initiatives. As

committed workers, this rewarding relationship with the organization would help them lead a life

of happiness and fulfillment and achieve their life goals.

3. The CSR-HRM mix: The critical role of HRM as a mediator and facilitator

to CSR

Human resource management has moved on from a passive backend role to a proactive business

partner role. With the advent of strategic human resource management (SHRM), HR has the

required resources and authority to implement processes and policies. From the perspective of

CSR, HRM can be termed as the ‘friend, philosopher and guide’ for the employees of the

organization. The primary responsibility of HRM is to mobilize and channelize employee energy

towards CSR (DuBois & Dubois, 2012). According to Bhattacharya (2012), employees like to

undertake CSR activities because they often find it emotionally rewarding. The problem is that in

many organizations employees are not aware of what to do in order to participate in such

activities. They may be mildly aware of the CSR initiatives of the company, but without a clear

cut guide/policy most of them would be marooned in their daily routines. This is where the

‘friend, philosopher and guide’ role of HR comes in. The objective of the HR department is to

plan, structure and implement CSR activities (Sharma, Sharma, & Devi, 2011). It can do this by

undertaking some initiatives, like:

1. Policy formation: The primary responsibility of HR is to develop a CSR policy that

employees can follow (Inyang, Awa, & Enuoh, 2011; Sharma et al., 2011). For example,

IBM’s policy explicitly states that each employee has to devote certain amount of time

every year towards CSR activities of the company. IBM’s HR policy mandates that the

entire employee base should participate in CSR initiatives. For this purpose, it has

developed reward and incentive systems that encourage employee participation. To give

employees a feel of the difference CSR makes, IBM HR deputes employees on various

public work projects involving their engineering skills, so that they can witness the

impact first hand (Pohle & Hittner, 2008).

2. Orientation of employees and trainees to CSR: The paper earlier covered the importance

of communicating value of CSR to employees. This is one of the most important tasks

wherein HRM can play an extremely crucial role. According to Bhattacharya (2012), it is

important that employees understand how they benefit from the organization’s CSR

activities and how these benefits in turn result into favorable company outcomes. HR has

to impart this knowledge to employees and trainees through training and induction

sessions. Organizations like IBM and Wipro start imparting this knowledge during the

induction itself so that socially responsible behaviors can be developed in the incoming

employees from the beginning (Sharma et al., 2011).

3. Initiating a ‘code of conduct’: As CSR is an activity with moral implications, it is

beneficial that the HRM devises a code of conduct that informs employees of the ‘do’s

and don’ts’ in the organization. The code of conduct is important in order to inculcate a

value system in the employees that translates into responsible behavior (Sharma et al.,

2011).

4. Training for CSR: The HR Department should be responsible for conducting training

analysis and imparting the requisite training for participation in CSR activities. A good

example of such training is Cadbury Schweppes which has devised a training programme

under the banner “CSR: Living our values learning tool” for employees that readies them

for participation in CSR activities every year (Sharma et al., 2011).

5. Job Design-CSR integration: The paper earlier cited the importance of CSR in providing

context and meaningfulness to work. Extending the same, the HR department can play a

crucial role in integrating CSR activities with job design. The ‘Job Characteristics model’

(Hackman & Oldham, 1976) states that a job must possess the certain core characteristics

like skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. CSR can go a

long way in equipping jobs with these characteristics and making work more meaningful.

6. Sustainability reports: HR can play a crucial role in consolidating data of CSR activities

and using it to issue sustainability reports. Sustainability reports help in communicating

the positive effects of CSR to the employees and general public, and ensure their future

commitment to these activities. The example of CSC Energy and IBM cited above are

pertinent in this regard (Bolton Sharon, 2011; Hsieh & Chan, 2012; Inyang et al., 2011;

Sharma et al., 2011) .

7. Ensuring union compliance: In manufacturing and industrial sectors, unions exert

tremendous power over workers. Due to the nature of manufacturing industries, CSR

activities like environmental sustenance, carbon control, etc. require participation of

unions. It is the responsibility of HR to ensure that unions understand the importance and

scope of these activities and are agreeable to the CSR policy of the organization (Ciprian-

Dumitru, 2013).

8. CSR during downsizing: As cited earlier, employee treatment is one of the most

important internal CSR activities upon which the organization is judged both by

employees and the public (Morsing et al., 2008). During unavoidable circumstances

leading to downsizing, the HR department has the responsibility to explain the condition

of the organization to the employees and facilitate their exit with dignity (Preuss,

Haunschild, & Matten, 2009). The HR department needs to take charge of issuing

severance packages and providing outplacement services, so that there is minimal impact

on the organization’s reputation.

Limitations of the paper

CSR is a broad topic with wide ranging implications. There is no unique definition of CSR

(Inyang et al., 2011) which classifies a particular set of activities as being part of the

organization’s social responsibility. CSR is often divided into ‘internal’ and ‘external’ CSR

depending upon the focus of the study. Topics dealing with environmental implications are often

treated as ‘external CSR’, while topics like ethics, corporate governance and employee treatment

are often deemed as ‘internal CSR’. This paper discusses CSR as a holistic set of activities

without distinguishing between external and internal CSR activities. The reason for this is that

the primary focus of the paper is employee engagement and the role of HRM in CSR.

Irrespective of which CSR activity (internal or external) an organization undertakes at any point

of time, the employee base and human resource department would always need to be mobilized

to attend to the cause. Hence, differentiating the two headers would not make much impact on

the scope of the paper.

Emerging topics and future research

All said and done, CSR is still in nascent stages of development. As the scope of the field

broadens, more subjects are being covered under the umbrella of CSR. A recent study in Europe

tried to link CSR with the psychosocial risk employees face at their jobs (Jain, Leka, &

Zwetsloot, 2011). Similarly, with the rise of the IT services sector, the subject of ‘ergonomics’

has come to the limelight. Medical research has linked seating posture and overexposure to

workplace equipment like computers to various lifestyle diseases. Proponents of CSR argue that

ensuring sound health of the employees is the moral responsibility of the employer and hence

‘ergonomics’ is essentially a part of CSR. While research is scant, Bolis (2013) and Hermans

(2006) have studied this topic from the perspective of CSR. Thus, in times to come the scope for

identifying and studying a whole new variety of subjects awaits the field of CSR.

Conclusion

The objective of the paper was to understand the role of employees in the CSR initiatives of the

organization. The paper discussed the collective importance of CSR for both employers and

employees. It went deeper to analyze what it takes for the organization to make employees a part

of its CSR campaign. The traditional understanding of CSR as an ‘extra non-essential activity’ is

today on the wane. Social responsibility has numerous benefits for the organization in terms of

public preference and reputation. The paper discusses how these factors can create a large

applicant pool for the organization and become a source of sustained competitive advantage.

On the other hand, employees are also benefitted by knowing that they are working with an

ethical and morally upright organization. Studies have shown that this reassurance acts as a

positive motivator which brings about stronger employee commitment. More committed

employees are less likely to leave the organization or skip work, thereby preventing attrition and

loss of performance.

Lastly, we saw how HRM plays a crucial role in mobilizing and channelizing employees to bring

about their participation in CSR activities. HR plays the critical role of formulating policies,

implementing procedures and establishing processes that actually lead to employee participation

in CSR. It is said that ‘an idea stays an idea if it is not brought onto paper and implemented’. The

HR department is the force that puts ideas into action and acts as the prime enabler for

employees to participate into CSR leading to its successful execution.

References

Allen, C. E. (1971). Social responsibilities of business corporations. In C. E. Allen (Ed.), A

statement by the research and policy committee.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.

Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management

Executive, 9(4), 49-61.

Bhattacharya, C., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2012). Using corporate social responsibility to win

the war for talent. MIT Sloan management review, 49.

Bolis, I., Morioka, S. N., Brunoro, C. M., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2013). Sustainability policies and

corporate social responsibility (csr) ergonomics contribution regarding work in

companies. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics

Society Annual Meeting.

Bolton Sharon, K. R., O'Gorman, Kevin. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a dynamic

internal organizational process: A case study. 101, 61-74.

Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007). The contribution of corporate social

responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 18(10), 1701-1719.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral

management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct.

Business & society, 38(3), 268-295.

Chen, Y.-R. R., & Hung-Baesecke, C.-J. F. (2014). Examining the internal aspect of corporate

social responsibility (csr): Leader behavior and employee csr participation.

Communication Research Reports, 31(2), 210.

Ciprian-Dumitru, S. (2013). How to deal with corporate social responsibility related to

employees. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 22(1), 1675-

1681.

Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment.

Business ethics: A European review, 16(1), 19-33.

DuBois, C. L. Z., & Dubois, D. A. (2012). Strategic hrm as social design for environmental

sustainability in organization. Human Resource Management, 51(6), 799-826.

Europe, C. (2010). Internal csr communication and employee engagement.

Frederick, W. C. (1994). From csr1 to csr2: The maturing of business-and-society thought, p150.

Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on

employee attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2), 165-202.

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Behavior in organizations: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a

theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.

Hermans, V., & Van Peteghem, J. (2006). The relation between osh and ergonomics: A ‘mother–

daughter’ or ‘sister–sister’ relation? Applied Ergonomics, 37(4), 451-459.

Hsieh, Y.-H., & Chan, J.-Y. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: A concern among

employees. Human Systems Management, 31(3/4), 219-230.

Inyang, B. J., Awa, H. O., & Enuoh, R. O. (2011). Csr-hrm nexus: Defining the role engagement

of the human resources professionals. The International Journal of Business and Social

Science, 2(5), 118-126.

Jain, A., Leka, S., & Zwetsloot, G. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and psychosocial risk

management in europe. Journal of business ethics, 101(4), 619-633.

Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational

identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a

volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

83(4), 857-878.

Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The ‘catch 22’of communicating csr:

Findings from a danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97-111.

Pohle, G., & Hittner, J. (2008). Attaining sustainable growth through corporate social

responsibility. IBM Institute for Business Value.

Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. (2009). The rise of csr: Implications for hrm and

employee representation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

20(4), 953-973.

Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to

corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537-543.

Sharma, S., Sharma, J., & Devi, A. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: The key role of

human resource management. Human Resource Management: Issues, Challenges and

Opportunities, 9.

Stawiski, S., Deal, J. J., & Gentry, W. (2010). Employee perceptions of corporate social

responsibility. Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.

Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial

performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5),

463-490.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational

attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658-

672.

Zhang, M., Fan, D., & Zhu, C. (2014). High-performance work systems, corporate social

performance and employee outcomes: Exploring the missing links. Journal of business

ethics, 120(3), 423-435.

The page has been intentionally left blank