# CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: QUID PRO QUO

EDITED BY: Ante Glavas, Chelsea R. Willness and David A. Jones PUBLISHED IN: Frontiers in Psychology

#### *Frontiers Copyright Statement*

*© Copyright 2007-2017 Frontiers Media SA. All rights reserved. All content included on this site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, video/audio clips, downloads, data compilations and software, is the property of or is licensed to Frontiers Media SA ("Frontiers") or its licensees and/or subcontractors. The copyright in the text of individual articles is the property of their respective authors, subject to a license granted to Frontiers.*

*The compilation of articles constituting this e-book, wherever published, as well as the compilation of all other content on this site, is the exclusive property of Frontiers. For the conditions for downloading and copying of e-books from Frontiers' website, please see the Terms for Website Use. If purchasing Frontiers e-books from other websites or sources, the conditions of the website concerned apply.*

*Images and graphics not forming part of user-contributed materials may not be downloaded or copied without permission.*

*Individual articles may be downloaded and reproduced in accordance with the principles of the CC-BY licence subject to any copyright or other notices. They may not be re-sold as an e-book.*

*As author or other contributor you grant a CC-BY licence to others to reproduce your articles, including any graphics and third-party materials supplied by you, in accordance with the Conditions for Website Use and subject to any copyright notices which you include in connection with your articles and materials.*

> *All copyright, and all rights therein, are protected by national and international copyright laws.*

*The above represents a summary only. For the full conditions see the Conditions for Authors and the Conditions for Website Use.*

ISSN 1664-8714 ISBN 978-2-88945-199-9 DOI 10.3389/978-2-88945-199-9

### About Frontiers

Frontiers is more than just an open-access publisher of scholarly articles: it is a pioneering approach to the world of academia, radically improving the way scholarly research is managed. The grand vision of Frontiers is a world where all people have an equal opportunity to seek, share and generate knowledge. Frontiers provides immediate and permanent online open access to all its publications, but this alone is not enough to realize our grand goals.

### Frontiers Journal Series

The Frontiers Journal Series is a multi-tier and interdisciplinary set of open-access, online journals, promising a paradigm shift from the current review, selection and dissemination processes in academic publishing. All Frontiers journals are driven by researchers for researchers; therefore, they constitute a service to the scholarly community. At the same time, the Frontiers Journal Series operates on a revolutionary invention, the tiered publishing system, initially addressing specific communities of scholars, and gradually climbing up to broader public understanding, thus serving the interests of the lay society, too.

### Dedication to Quality

Each Frontiers article is a landmark of the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors and review editors, who include some of the world's best academicians. Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public - and shape society; therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews.

Frontiers revolutionizes research publishing by freely delivering the most outstanding research, evaluated with no bias from both the academic and social point of view. By applying the most advanced information technologies, Frontiers is catapulting scholarly publishing into a new generation.

### What are Frontiers Research Topics?

Frontiers Research Topics are very popular trademarks of the Frontiers Journals Series: they are collections of at least ten articles, all centered on a particular subject. With their unique mix of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Frontiers Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author by contacting the Frontiers Editorial Office: researchtopics@frontiersin.org

# **CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: QUID PRO QUO**

Topic Editors:

**Ante Glavas,** KEDGE Business School, France **Chelsea R. Willness,** University of Saskatchewan, Canada **David A. Jones,** University of Vermont, USA

Image by Aaron Burden, available at https://unsplash. com/@aaronburden

Researchers, corporate leaders, and other stakeholders have shown increasing interest in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)—a company's discretionary actions and policies that appear to advance societal well-being beyond the firm's immediate financial interests and legal requirements. Spanning decades of research activity, the scholarly literature on CSR has been dominated by meso- and macro-level perspectives, such as studies within corporate strategy that examine relationships between firm-level indicators of social/environmental performance and corporate financial performance. In recent years, however, there has been an explosion of micro-oriented CSR research conducted at the individual-level of analysis, especially with respect to studies on how and why job seekers and employees perceive and react to CSR practices. This micro-level focus is reflected in 13 articles published in this edited volume as a research topic collection in Frontiers

in Psychology (Organizational Psychology Specialty Section) titled "Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: Quid pro quo."

**Citation:** Glavas, A., Willness, C. R., Jones, D. A., eds. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: Quid pro Quo. Lausanne: Frontiers Media. doi: 10.3389/978-2-88945-199-9

# Table of Contents

### **Introduction:**

*05 When Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Meets Organizational Psychology: New Frontiers in Micro-CSR Research, and Fulfilling a Quid Pro Quo through Multilevel Insights*

David A. Jones, Chelsea R. Willness and Ante Glavas

### **Commentary:**

*19 Commentary: Corporate Social Responsibility: Deep Roots, Flourishing Growth, Promising Future* William C. Frederick

### **Conceptual Articles:**

*21 Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review*

Ante Glavas

*34 Perception-Induced Effects of Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSiR) for Stereotypical and Admired Firms*

Seraphim Voliotis, Pavlos A. Vlachos and Olga Epitropaki

### **Empirical Articles:**

*40 Stakeholders' Responses to CSR Tradeoffs: When Other-Orientation and Trust Trump Material Self-Interest*

Flore Bridoux, Nicole Stofberg and Deanne Den Hartog


Imran Hameed, Zahid Riaz, Ghulam A. Arain and Omer Farooq


David A. Jones, Chelsea R. Willness and Kristin W. Heller

*111 Turn It Off: An Action Research Study of Top Management Influence on Energy Conservation in the Workplace*

Sally V. Russell, Alice Evans, Kelly S. Fielding and Christopher Hill


Kerrie L. Unsworth, Sally V. Russell and Matthew C. Davis

*138 Age and Employee Green Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis* Brenton M. Wiernik, Stephan Dilchert and Deniz S. Ones

# When Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Meets Organizational Psychology: New Frontiers in Micro-CSR Research, and Fulfilling a Quid Pro Quo through Multilevel Insights

#### David A. Jones<sup>1</sup> \*, Chelsea R. Willness<sup>2</sup> and Ante Glavas<sup>3</sup>

<sup>1</sup> Grossman School of Business, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA, <sup>2</sup> Edwards School of Business, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, <sup>3</sup> Department of Corporate Social Responsibility, Strategy and Entrepreneurship, KEDGE Business School, Marseille, France

#### Edited by:

Pavlos A. Vlachos, ALBA Graduate Business School, Greece

#### Reviewed by:

Valérie Swaen, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium Paolo Antonetti, Queen Mary University of London, UK

> \*Correspondence: David A. Jones dajones@bsad.uvm.edu

#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 23 January 2017 Accepted: 21 March 2017 Published: 07 April 2017

#### Citation:

Jones DA, Willness CR and Glavas A (2017) When Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Meets Organizational Psychology: New Frontiers in Micro-CSR Research, and Fulfilling a Quid Pro Quo through Multilevel Insights. Front. Psychol. 8:520. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00520 Researchers, corporate leaders, and other stakeholders have shown increasing interest in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)—a company's discretionary actions and policies that appear to advance societal well-being beyond its immediate financial interests and legal requirements. Spanning decades of research activity, the scholarly literature on CSR has been dominated by meso- and macro-level perspectives, such as studies within corporate strategy that examine relationships between firm-level indicators of social/environmental performance and corporate financial performance. In recent years, however, there has been an explosion of micro-oriented CSR research conducted at the individual level of analysis, especially with respect to studies on how and why job seekers and employees perceive and react to CSR practices. This micro-level focus is reflected in 12 articles published as a Research Topic collection in Frontiers in Psychology (Organizational Psychology Specialty Section) titled "CSR and organizational psychology: Quid pro quo." In the present article, the authors summarize and integrate findings from these Research Topic articles. After describing some of the "new frontiers" these articles explore and create, the authors strive to fulfill a "quid pro quo" with some of the meso- and macro-oriented CSR literatures that paved the way for micro-CSR research. Specifically, the authors draw on insights from the Research Topic articles to inform a multilevel model that offers multiple illustrations of how micro-level processes among individual stakeholders can explain variability in meso (firm)-level relationships between CSR practices and corporate performance. The authors also explore an important implication of these multilevel processes for macro-level societal impact.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, corporate social performance, sustainability, organizational psychology, microfoundations, multilevel theory, micro-CSR, stakeholder

## INTRODUCTION

fpsyg-08-00520 April 6, 2017 Time: 13:15 # 2

For-profit companies are increasingly focused on managing how internal and external stakeholders perceive and react to business practices pertaining to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) a company's discretionary actions, policies, and programs that appear to advance societal well-being in ways that extend beyond its immediate financial interests and the requirements of the law (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). CSR initiatives are usually designed to take into account stakeholder expectations about the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance (Aguinis, 2011).

Since the early 1950s when the CSR concept came to fruition, much of the associated scholarly research has been dominated by a "macro focus that emphasized broad firm-wide policies, thereby laying the responsibility for attaining CSR results directly on top-level managers and the overall strategies they adopted" (Frederick, 2016, p. 2). This firm-level focus in CSR research has been described as a "macro" perspective by Frederick and others, whereas researchers in some disciplines would describe it as a "meso" perspective. For clarity, we adopt the labels and distinctions between three levels of analysis described by Frynas and Stephens (2015, p. 485): "the micro level (involving psychological bases among individuals), the meso level (involving relational issues among organizations), and the macro level (involving wider political, economic and societal dynamics)"<sup>1</sup> . As Frederick (2016) observed, much of the broader CSR literature comprises meso-level theory and research, including a number of studies conducted by business strategy scholars who strive to understand relationships between firm-level CSR practices (or corporate social performance) and indicators of firm-level performance, including corporate financial performance (e.g., Waddock and Graves, 1997; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Macro-level research has also advanced the science and practice of CSR by highlighting how CSR phenomena are shaped by the broader economic, institutional, political, and societal contexts in which they are embedded (e.g., Matten and Moon, 2008; Frynas and Stephens, 2015). In contrast to the amount of meso- and macro-level CSR research, relatively few micro-level studies exist (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012), which has left a gap in the scholarly understanding of the intersections between a company's CSR practices, the broader contexts in which they are embedded, and the associated experiences and reactions among the company's own people.

Employees, as well as prospective employees, are important stakeholders who both influence and are influenced by an employer's CSR practices (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Aguilera et al., 2007). In some cases, specific CSR initiatives and programs are created by a company's employees, and in most cases a company's employees are involved in implementing its CSR practices. Moreover, a growing body of empirical evidence shows that the decisions and behaviors of job seekers and employees create meaningful demand for companies to invest in substantive CSR practices (Jones and Rupp, in press). In hindsight, the lack of attention paid by CSR scholars to a firm's internal stakeholders is somewhat surprising, to say the least. But this knowledge gap is now being filled by what can be appropriately described as an explosion of micro-CSR research conducted at the individual-level of analysis focusing on how and why job seekers, employees, and other individuals perceive and react to CSR (Glavas, 2016a). This explosion of scholarly activity is reflected in the recent publication of several reviews of micro-CSR research on employee recruitment, and reactions to CSR among incumbent employees (Peloza and Shang, 2011; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Jones and Willness, 2013; Willness and Jones, 2013; Rupp and Mallory, 2015; Glavas, 2016b; Gond et al., 2017; Jones and Rupp, in press). The micro-CSR literature also appears to be undergoing rapid maturation, as evidenced by advances in measurement (El Akremi et al., 2015), and the development of overarching theories about how and why individuals react to CSR practices, including theory about employee motives (Rupp et al., 2006; Bauman and Skitka, 2012; Glavas, 2016b; Jones and Rupp, in press), the underlying mechanisms through which job seekers are attracted by CSR (Jones et al., 2014), and a needs-based model of CSR motives that applies to micro-, meso-, and macro-level stakeholders (Aguilera et al., 2007).

In this context, we sought to promote new advances to micro-CSR theory and research by co-editing a Frontiers in Psychology (Organizational Psychology Specialty Section) Research Topic collection titled "CSR and organizational psychology: Quid pro quo." In the present article, we describe the diversity of perspectives and approaches applied in the 12 Research Topic articles, and some of the "new frontiers" these articles explore and create for micro-CSR theory and research. We then draw on insights from these Research Topic articles in an effort to fulfill a "quid pro quo" with some of the meso- and macro-oriented literatures that paved the way for micro-CSR scholarship. Specifically, we provide a number of examples grounded in the Research Topic articles that can inform multilevel conceptualizations of CSR phenomena, focusing on how micro-level processes among individual stakeholders can explain variability in meso (firm)-level relationships between CSR practices and corporate performance. We also consider an important implication of these multilevel processes for macrolevel societal impact.

### A DIVERSITY OF APPROACHES AND PERSPECTIVES IN THE 12 MICRO-CSR RESEARCH TOPIC ARTICLES

This collection of 12 Research Topic articles illustrates a rich diversity of conceptual and methodological approaches used to advance the micro-CSR literature, the kinds of stakeholders on which these studies focus, and the types of CSR practices examined. With respect to the diversity

<sup>1</sup>We adopt the micro-, meso-, and macro- labels to draw attention to these distinctions and encourage micro-CSR scholars to more clearly distinguish between meso- and macro-level phenomena, and to facilitate understanding among non-micro oriented readers who may be more familiar with the labels adopted herein. As observed by one reviewer, however, micro individual-level research need not be psychological in nature, and group-level research can encompass psychological constructs (e.g., research on group-level climates).

of conceptual and methodological approaches, these Research Topic articles include a commentary on the history of macro-, meso-, and micro-CSR research (Frederick, 2016), a literature review of micro-CSR theory and research (Glavas, 2016a), conceptually driven theoretical development (Voliotis et al., 2016), experimental research utilizing quantitative and qualitative data (Bridoux et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2016), an assessment of interview data (Seivwright and Unsworth, 2016), an intervention study (Russell et al., 2016), survey-based field research (Glavas, 2016b; Hameed et al., 2016; Jones, 2016; Unsworth et al., 2016), and a meta-analysis (Wiernik et al., 2016).

Most of the empirical studies among these Research Topic articles focus on employees as the focal stakeholder group, including studies of how employees conceptualize their employer's responsible or irresponsible practices (Seivwright and Unsworth, 2016; Voliotis et al., 2016), how they respond to CSR practices (Glavas, 2016b; Hameed et al., 2016; Jones, 2016), and their work behaviors that contribute to their employer's CSR initiatives (Russell et al., 2016; Seivwright and Unsworth, 2016; Wiernik et al., 2016). Other Research Topic articles focus on other individual-level stakeholders, including job seekers (Bridoux et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2016), customers (Bridoux et al., 2016), and members of the general public (Unsworth et al., 2016). In addition to this diversity of stakeholders, these articles also vary in the types of CSR practices examined. Some articles focus on the intersection of business practices and climate change (Unsworth et al., 2016) and companies' environmental practices (Russell et al., 2016; Wiernik et al., 2016), whereas other articles focus on employee volunteerism (Jones, 2016) or both community involvement and environmentally sustainable business practices (Jones et al., 2016). Another article focuses on the distinction between internal vs. external CSR practices (Hameed et al., 2016), and other articles focus on multiple types of CSR practices examined separately (Bridoux et al., 2016; Seivwright and Unsworth, 2016) or together as a broader CSR concept or composite (Frederick, 2016; Glavas, 2016a,b; Voliotis et al., 2016). These Research Topic articles also include critical analyses and empirical tests of the veracity of beliefs and assumptions held by societal members and scholars alike (Jones, 2016; Wiernik et al., 2016), and explicit considerations of contexts in which stakeholders react negatively to wellintentioned CSR practices (Jones et al., 2016) and to social irresponsible practices (Voliotis et al., 2016). Together, the Research Topic articles offer a diversity of conceptual and methodological approaches that can be used to study micro-CSR topics, and they highlight a variety of stakeholders and CSR practices on which future researchers can focus in isolation or in combination.

We now turn to describing "new frontiers" for micro-CSR theory and research based on insights and findings from the 12 Research Topic articles. We begin by summarizing key points from the two commentary and literature review articles, followed by describing some of the "new frontiers" illuminated by the remaining ten articles that we discuss in alphabetical order by the authors' last names. In highlighting these "new frontiers," our purpose is to illuminate some of the valuable insights that can be gleaned from reading each Research Topic article, and to emphasize new directions for micro-CSR theory and research.

### "NEW FRONTIERS" EXPLORED AND CREATED BY THE 12 RESEARCH TOPIC ARTICLES

In this brief but impactful commentary, renowned CSR scholar William Frederick expands upon an article that he wrote in 2008 through his Research Topic article titled Corporate social responsibility: Deep roots, flourishing growth, promising future. The commentary provides an excellent frame for the other articles in this Research Topic collection by describing macro, meso, and micro CSR and advocating for integration between the levels into a holistic analysis of CSR. Frederick (2016) also offers an interesting historical snapshot of the concept of CSR, and its evolution from the early 1950s to present day. He closes with an urgent call to action in the context of climate change and global environmental challenges to create a coalition between the policy makers and the people. Further, he characterizes the articles in this Research Topic as an effective starting place for conversations and new ideas about how to attain the "Policy to People" goal that he suggests is so critically needed.

The collection of Research Topic articles also includes a review of micro-CSR theory and research, titled Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. In this article, Glavas (2016a)reviews relevant work across 166 articles, book chapters, and books, and he highlights potential synergies between organizational psychology and CSR that create opportunities to advance the broader CSR literature. For instance, while micro-CSR research on employees has focused on the outcomes of employee beliefs and perceptions of CSR practices (i.e., employee responses to CSR), there has been relatively less emphasis on understanding the underlying mechanisms (i.e., the psychological mechanisms that mediate CSR-employee outcome relationships). Organizational and applied psychology, Glavas points out, have a rich history of theoretical development that has been used to understand underlying mechanisms. He reviews extant applications of theories in micro-CSR research that include organizational justice, social exchange, ethics, values alignment, and individual differences. The author also encourages "new frontiers" by proposing five areas for future research grounded in theories of organizational psychology, such as studies focusing on the intersection of CSR with work meaningfulness and an employee's ability to realize his or her whole/ideal self at work. The underlying theme of his literature review also represents a "new frontier" through his more general assertion that CSR practices can be embedded in organizational designs and processes to make organizations more humanistic in nature.

"New frontiers" are also explored in an experimental study described in an article titled Stakeholders' responses to CSR tradeoffs: When other-orientation and trust trump material selfinterest by Bridoux et al. (2016). These authors focus on the theoretically and practically important topic of stakeholder reactions to CSR tradeoffs, which refers to a firm's unbalanced

allocation of resources to support CSR initiatives intended to benefit specific stakeholder groups. For instance, when a firm has relatively strong CSR practices with respect to its treatment of suppliers while having relatively weak CSR practices toward its own employees, how might customers or prospective employees respond? Might stakeholder responses be shaped by whether their own stakeholder group is the affected party at the favorable vs. unfavorable end of a CSR tradeoff? Using a sample of over 900 participants, these authors conducted a vignette-based experimental study to explore these questions and other novel theoretically grounded hypotheses across multiple contexts and scenarios. Their study results debunk the myth of the so-called "rational man" who reliably acts in the service of his or her own self-interest, by showing that people did not systematically respond more positively to a CSR tradeoff that favored their own group over another stakeholder group. Rather, the results paint a nuanced picture of stakeholder responses to CSR tradeoffs based on the interplay between whether a tradeoff favors one's own or some other group, individual differences (i.e., other orientation), and organizational trust as a potential mediator that explains responses from two stakeholder groups: customers' purchasing intentions and job seekers' job pursuit intentions. In practice, CSR trade-offs are more likely to be the norm than the exception, given the multitude and diversity of pressures affecting managerial decisions about CSR-directed resource allocations, such as the competitive, economic, cultural, regulatory, and other institutional pressures faced by each company. As such, this article opens the door to "new frontiers" for micro CSR scholars who are well-equipped to conduct research and develop theory to explain stakeholder reactions to such CSR trade-offs.

In an article by Glavas (2016b) titled Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Enabling employees to employ more of their whole selves at work, the author builds on engagement theory in his investigation of whether CSR can enable employees to bring more of their whole selves to work and, as a result, be more engaged. Specifically, he tests two mediators through which CSR was hypothesized to promote engagement: perceived organizational support (POS) and authenticity (i.e., being able to show one's true self at work). Although prior micro-CSR research has examined the roles of POS and related constructs, little to no empirical attention has been paid to whether CSR might be a vehicle through which employees can bring more aspects of their whole selves to work. The results of this study, based on survey responses from over 15,000 employees of a professional services firm, open up "new frontiers" in at least three ways. First, the study represents a shift from the more common top-down focus on what an organization can give to employees to a bottom-up approach where CSR is conceptualized as providing the conditions in which employees are doing the giving (i.e., employees giving themselves to their employer and those served by its CSR). Second, while research has shown that engaging in CSR as an extra-role pursuit (e.g., employee volunteering) can have positive effects on employees in the short term, there are few longitudinal studies that inform whether higher levels of extra-role CSR involvement might have negative effects on employees, as reflected in their work engagement. Finally, study results illustrate the importance of testing multiple mediators within the same empirical models, which has rarely occurred in micro-CSR research. For instance, the nature of an indirect effect observed in micro-CSR research might differ depending on whether a given mediator is tested on its own vs. in models that include other mediators, and such a difference may have profound implications for how scholars explain the processes through which CSR leads to employee outcomes.

In another survey-based field study, Hameed et al. (2016) explore "new frontiers" that can meaningfully inform CSR theory and practice in their article titled How do internal and external CSR affect employees' organizational identification? A perspective from the group engagement model. These authors grounded their hypotheses in an important distinction between employees' perceptions of internal CSR practices directed toward the firm's employees, vs. external CSR practices directed toward stakeholders outside the firm, such as suppliers and the community. The authors draw on the group engagement model from the organizational justice literature and social identity theory to develop hypotheses about how internal and external CSR practices related to employees' organizational identification via different mechanisms: perceived internal respect and perceived external prestige, respectively. Using survey data from 414 employees working in five multinational firms in Pakistan, study results demonstrate the value of distinguishing between internal vs. external CSR practices in micro CSR research that seeks to understand employee responses to CSR practices. The authors also present evidence highlighting how the extent to which employees view their work as a "calling" rather than a "job" (i.e., their calling orientation) shapes the relationship between their perceptions of their employer's CSR practices and their organizational identification.

In another field study reported in an article titled Widely assumed but thinly tested: Do employee volunteers' self-reported skill improvements reflect the nature of their volunteering experience?, Jones (2016) grounds his research in a critical observation: A frequently touted benefit to firms that invest in corporate volunteering programs is that their employees develop work-related skills through volunteering while on "company time" (i.e., as part of their daily work). Jones observes, however, that this assumption has received little to no empirical scrutiny in the scholarly literature, and is instead accepted as "fact" based largely on anecdotal reports from corporate leaders and employee volunteers. Using data from 74 employee volunteers who completed a 10-week service apprenticeship managed by a U.S.-based non-profit called Citizen Schools, Jones explores "new frontiers" by testing novel hypotheses about the extent to which self-reported skill development reflects characteristics of the employee volunteers and their volunteering experiences as theory and common sense dictate if skill development truly occurs. For instance, he tested hypotheses about whether employee volunteers who report having more opportunities to practice each of 10 skills report significantly greater development in those skills (e.g., leadership, mentorship, motivating others, project management, providing feedback, public speaking, teamwork, and time management). Jones also tested hypotheses about the interaction between characteristics of the volunteering

experience and the employee volunteers' self-efficacy about their ability to improve their work-related skills. Jones discusses how the support found for some study hypotheses informs new directions for research and theory, and the design of volunteer experiences that benefit employers and employees, while creating value for the communities and causes they serve.

Focusing on responses to CSR among job seekers rather than employees, Jones et al. (2016) studied the reasons why many job seekers tend to be attracted to working for employers known for their community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices. As suggested by the title of their article Illuminating the signals job seekers receive from an employer's community involvement and environmental sustainability practices: Insights into why most job seekers are attracted, others are indifferent, and a few are repelled, study results also point to reasons why such practices can sometimes be ineffective, and even counterproductive. These authors conducted a substantive replication of prior support that was found for three signalbased mechanisms (Jones et al., 2014) by content analyzing written responses to two general questions about whether and why participants were (or were not) attracted to a target employer, and their impressions about the content of one of its webpages that included information about either of the two types of CSR practices examined. Their findings provided support for two previously established mechanisms, and extended prior work by identifying other signal-based mechanisms that might plausibly affect job seekers' attraction to CSR (e.g., inferences about the characteristics of the company's employees). Their study also creates "new frontiers" by exploring data that offers the first ever empirically driven insights into why some people are unaffected by an employer's CSR practices, and a few might even be "turned off " by them (e.g., people's skepticism and cynicism about the CSR practices).

Russell et al. (2016) tested the effects of an intervention on employees' CSR-related behaviors in an article titled Turn it off: An action research study of top management influence on energy conservation in the workplace. These authors explore "new frontiers" by looking inside the organization to understand how the visibility of top management commitment to environmental practices through modeling and prompts/reminders might influence employees' energy conservation behaviors. For instance, although researchers have explored the effects of prompts/reminders on environmental behaviors at home, this topic has received little to no attention in workplace settings. Deriving hypotheses from behavior change theory, the authors tested the effects of a three-pronged intervention (visual modeling, communication, and prompts) among employees of an Australian hospital using a pre–post-intervention design that included post-intervention measures taken 1 and 6 months later. Study data included objective measures of energy conservation (e.g., use of lights, and turning off computers and monitors) and subjective measures of the same variables, plus attitudinal measures like the degree to which participants felt energy conservation was part of the organizational culture and norms, and perceived commitment to such practices among top management. Study results provided general support for the efficacy of the intervention, including effects that were observed 6 months later, while some of the more nuanced findings open several "new frontiers" for researchers to explore (e.g., do the effects of the intervention weaken over time as employees become habituated to the prompts?).

In another Research Topic article titled Making sense of corporate social responsibility at work, Seivwright and Unsworth (2016) argue that in order to fully understand what influences employees' engagement in CSR, it is critical to first understand how the employees themselves conceptualize CSR and its relation to their work. The authors note that CSR is often enacted or implemented by an organization's employees, yet there has been comparatively little focus on how they understand CSR and how they contribute to it. The authors also distinguish between employees in non-profit vs. for-profit organizations, which may have important implications in terms of their perceptions and experiences. Using an exploratory inductive approach, Seivwright and Unsworth conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 employees, gathering data from both types of organizations (i.e., non-profit and for-profit). They asked employees about any instances of their CSR-related behavior at work, as well as why they engaged in that action, whether it was encouraged by the organization, any perceived obstacles, and how the CSR behavior made them feel. The results of this study showed important contrasts in how employees from non-profit vs. for-profit organizations conceptualized and engaged in CSR, especially regarding how CSR contributes to their experience of meaningfulness at work and in work. This article paves the way for several "new frontiers" including examining a more fulsome scope of behaviors that employees believe are part of CSR, comparing the perceptions of employees in organizations with arguably different roles and missions in society, and the implications of embedded vs. peripheral CSR (at the organizational strategy and individual job levels) on the experience of meaningfulness at work.

In an article on societal attitudes toward the role of business in combatting climate change, Is dealing with climate change a corporation's responsibility? A social contract perspective, Unsworth et al. (2016) examine attitudes about anthropogenic climate change and free market ideology, and how this impacts people's beliefs about the actors responsible for dealing with climate change (e.g., corporations, governments, local authorities, environmental groups, etc.). In their survey study of 1066 individuals across Australia, the authors examine the social contract aspects of CSR in terms of whether citizens believe companies have a legal responsibility to address climate change, and the factors that impact support for regulatory policy to act upon that belief. Their findings highlight "new frontiers" not only in research (e.g., micro-level data with societal-level implications) but also important repercussions for policy-makers, particularly given the prominent role of free market ideology in the pattern of effects and its potential to create barriers to change.

In a conceptual and theory development piece, Perceptioninduced effects of corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR) for

stereotypical and admired firms, Voliotis et al. (2016) explore "new frontiers" by developing a model of how stakeholders react to corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR). Prior research has tended to focus on positive stakeholder reactions to CSR, whether those CSR practices are meaningful in scope and embedded in a firm's operations, or more symbolic and superficial. Relatively overlooked, however, are negative stakeholder reactions to a firm's irresponsible business practices. In another departure from existing perspectives in which CSR and CSiR are typically viewed as opposite ends of a single continuum, these authors propose there are distinct psychological mechanisms involved in interpreting and reacting to CSR vs. CSiR. Building on theories from the stereotype content model and the BIAS map (behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes), the authors propose a model to explain stakeholder reactions to CSiR. For a typical for-profit firm, the authors propose that stakeholders will react to CSiR through the mechanism of respect/disrespect and like/dislike, which can lead to anger and in turn motives to create harm for the firm. In contrast, for stakeholder reactions to CSiR among admired firms, the positive reputations of those firms can buffer stakeholders' negative reactions. The authors explore other "new frontiers" by proposing various boundary conditions for these effects (e.g., perception of the firm's culpability in the CSiR).

In Wiernik et al.'s (2016) article titled Age and employee green behaviors: A meta-analysis, the authors explore "new frontiers" through a timely examination of the widely held assumption that younger workers are more environmentally responsible than older workers, which is particularly relevant in the context of recent demographic, economic, and societal shifts. Specifically, Wiernik et al. (2016) meta-analyze 132 independent correlations and 336 d-values based on a total of 4676 professional workers across 22 samples in multiple countries to assess potential age differences in pro-environmental behaviors at work. The authors also draw upon a model of employee green behaviors (Ones and Dilchert, 2012) to examine potential differences among various dimensions including Conserving, Avoiding Harm, Transforming, Influencing Others, and Taking Initiative behaviors. Study results reveal an interesting nuance in the patterns of age-based effects on various dimensions of employee green behaviors. Considered as a whole, however, their findings open "new frontiers" in research and practice by largely debunking age-based stereotypes when it comes to green behaviors at work. The authors conclude that age is likely a "poor proxy" for presumed psychosocial factors (e.g., personality traits, environmental attitudes, or values) in the study of green behavior, or environmental sustainability more broadly, and they suggest that such factors should be measured and directly tested in future research.

### FULFILLING A "QUID PRO QUO": IMPLICATIONS FOR MULTILEVEL CSR RESEARCH

Having described the "new frontiers" created and explored by the authors of these 12 Research Topic articles, we now leverage insights from these studies in an attempt to fulfill a "quid pro quo" by contributing to some of the meso- and macro-oriented literatures that paved the way for micro-CSR scholarship. In **Figure 1** we present a multilevel model to illustrate ways in which micro-level processes among individual stakeholders can explain variability in meso (firm)-level relationships between CSR practices and corporate performance. We also explore an important implication of these multilevel processes for macro-level societal impact. To be clear, we do not offer this model as a comprehensive multilevel theory of CSR; rather, our objective is far more modest in scope. We offer this model to illustrate ways in which researchers can use insights from micro-CSR studies, such as those that comprise this Research Topic collection, to inform multilevel perspectives that advance CSR theory and research. Supplementing this figure is **Table 1**, where we offer a non-exhaustive list of research propositions pertaining to the multilevel model in **Figure 1**, many of which are intended to illustrate ways in which micro-level insights can inform multilevel research that advances CSR theory and practice. In **Table 1** we cite Research Topic articles for propositions that build on their findings.

**Figure 1** is centered around the path that represents the effect of firm-level CSR practices on corporate performance a meso-level relationship that has been the subject of a considerable amount of scholarly debate and research (see Peloza, 2009; Wood, 2010). Among the most frequently studied and (still) hotly debated questions in the broader CSR literature is whether and how CSR practices contribute to or detract from firm performance. Meso-level research has produced mixed results regarding the direction and strength of the relationships between firm-level social/environmental performance and corporate performance (Orlitzky et al., 2003; Margolis et al., 2009; Peloza, 2009; Wood, 2010), with much of this research operationalizing the latter through various indicators of corporate financial performance (e.g., Bansal and Clelland, 2004; Godfrey et al., 2009; Flammer, 2013). Peloza (2009), for example, reviewed 128 empirical studies of this type, and found that the majority reported a positive relationship (59%), but more than one-third reported null or negative relationships.

Researchers have offered multiple explanations for effect size variability in these meso-level relationships, such as stakeholder mismatching between the measures of CSR and firm performance (Wood and Jones, 1995), measurement error and sampling error (Waddock and Graves, 1997), and unaccounted for contingencies (Ullmann, 1985; see also Marom, 2006). Meta-analytic evidence provides some degree of support for all four explanations, while also demonstrating a positive CSR-corporate performance relationship after accounting for statistical and methodological artifacts (Orlitzky et al., 2003). These same authors noted, however, that a considerable amount of unexplained variability in effect sizes across studies still remained, and they urged researchers to identify and test other plausible moderators of CSR-corporate performance relationships. We assert that at least some, and probably much, of this unexplained variability is driven by unmeasured micro-level processes that

occur among individual job seekers, employees, and other stakeholders (see Proposition 1, or P1, in **Table 1**) that ultimately lead to both positive and negative outcomes that shape the direction and strength of meso-level relationships between firm CSR practices and corporate performance (see P2 in **Table 1**).

We use insights from the Research Topic articles to identify micro-level processes that shape the direction and strength of firm-level effects of CSR on corporate performance. Consistent with longitudinal meta-analytic evidence for what the researchers dubbed a "virtuous cycle" (Orlitzky et al., 2003), **Figure 1** also includes a feedback loop from corporate performance to firm-level CSR to reflect the bi-directional causal influence between the two. That is, as firms engage in more CSR practices their performance tends to increase, and as their performance increases those firms are better positioned and increasingly motivated to allocate additional resources to enhance their CSR practices. The feedback loop represented by this virtuous cycle, we suggest, is strengthened to the extent that companies effectively communicate and manage individual-level beliefs and reactions to their CSR (see P3 in **Table 1**).

**Figure 1** also suggests that this virtuous cycle between meso-level CSR practices and corporate performance has an implication for macro-level societal impact. As firms engage in more strategically valuable CSR practices that enhance their corporate performance, they are incentivized to maintain and even bolster their investments in CSR over time, thereby creating the potential for increasingly higher levels of societal impact (see P4 in **Table 1**).

## Micro-level Influences on Meso (Firm)-level CSR Practices

The starting point of the model presented in **Figure 1** is a firm's CSR practices. Two Research Topic articles provide insights into factors affecting employee behaviors that enhance a firm's CSR practices relating to its environmental impact. First, employee age appears to have negligible effects on different categories of employee green behaviors and, contrary to pervasive stereotypes, older-aged workers engage in green behaviors slightly more often than their younger-aged counterparts (Wiernik et al., 2016). Moreover, many of these relationships held across 22 organizational contexts in 11 countries. These findings suggest that firms that employ a relatively younger- or older-aged workforce should not be distracted by fretting over whether their employees will embrace the company's sustainability efforts, nor should managers assume their context is so unique that employee age may indeed matter. For instance, these meta-analytic findings apply to firms that are focused on incremental improvements in reduced energy use (see findings pertaining to employees' Conserving behaviors) and firms focused on innovating through sustainability initiatives (see findings pertaining to employees' Transforming and Taking Initiative behaviors). Study findings reported in a second Research Topic article suggest that senior leaders can promote employees' energy conservation behaviors by demonstrating their own commitment to sustainability through role modeling and communication, and the use of prompts to remind employees to turn off lights, computers, and monitors (Russell et al., 2016). Mixed results were found at the meso-level (i.e., on the

#### TABLE 1 | Illustrative research propositions that inform multilevel CSR research, including propositions grounded in findings from research topic articles.

Illustrative Research Propositions (P) Pertaining to the Multilevel Model in Figure 1


Micro-level Processes and Effects that Contribute to Positive Meso-level Relationships


Micro-level Processes and Effects that Contribute to Negative Meso-level Relationships


firm's energy conservation), but when unpacked, the results varied depending on behavior at the micro level. Employee influences on meso-level CSR practices were greatest when employees had individual responsibility. For example, for shared resources (e.g., lights), there seemed to be a diffusion of responsibility which led to negligible behavioral change. However, for resources for which employees were responsible (e.g., hard drives, monitors) evidence of longitudinal behavioral change was found. These findings highlight that meso-level effects of CSR on firm performance can be better understood by unpacking some of the micro-level processes and effects involved.

### Micro-level Processes That Contribute to Positive Meso-level CSR-corporate Performance Relationships

We suggested above that some, and probably much, of the unexplained variability in meso-level relationships between firm CSR practices and corporate performance is due to unmeasured micro-level processes that occur among individual job seekers, employees, and other stakeholders. We are not the only, nor the first, researchers to make this assertion: Bauman and Skitka (2012), for example, suggested that the firm-level (meso) relationship between corporate social performance and financial performance is presumable shaped by the effects of CSR on a firm's ability to attract and retain cooperative and committed employees. Indeed, when one considers that employee attitudes and behaviors are associated with unit-level organizational performance (Koys, 2001), coupled with the growing body of evidence linking CSR to positive employee responses, it is reasonable to expect that some variability in meso-level relationships between CSR and firm performance is attributable to individuallevel reactions to CSR. What we uniquely add to prior assertions of this type, however, is a deeper exploration into specific illustrations of pertinent individual-level reactions and processes, and an explicit recognition that these individual-level effects can exert both positive and negative influence on meso-level relationships between CSR and firm performance.

Unfortunately, empirically grounded evidence is severely lacking, as multilevel CSR studies that include analyses of individual-level data are surprisingly rare. Some researchers have studied employee and customer reactions to CSR without collecting any individual-level data from employees or customers, such as by operationalizing CSR, employee retention, and customer satisfaction at the meso-level via survey responses from CEOs (Galbreath, 2010). Other researchers have measured employee attitudes and behaviors at the individual-level and then aggregate that data to create firm-level measures (Chun et al., 2013). However, neither of these two approaches allows researchers to test cross-level effects or interactions. Other multilevel studies have included individual-level measures of employee attitudes and behaviors as well as firm-level measures of socially responsible human resource management (SRHRM) practices, with the latter comprising items like "my company consider employee social performance in performance appraisals" and "my company considers person identity-CSR identity fit in recruitment and selection" (e.g., Shen and Benson, 2016). Notwithstanding the contributions from such studies, the extent to which a company embeds CSR considerations within its HR practices is distinct from the extent to which it engages in CSR practices more broadly, including external CSR practices targeted toward external stakeholders like the natural environment or local community. Other multilevel studies offer insights into multilevel CSR phenomena, but only indirect insights given the absence of CSR measures at any level of analysis. For instance, Parboteeah et al. (2012) tested hypotheses about relationships between cultural dimensions measured at the country-level and people's propensity to support sustainability initiatives at the individual-level, but none of the measures used in this study contained references CSR, sustainable business, or company practices of any type.

One recent study, however, tested relationships among mesolevel CSR and micro-level employee attitudes. Suh (2016) measured meso-level CSR (measured via an independent index), meso-level communication (aggregated across individual-level survey responses), and individual-level employee attitudes and demographics. Results showed that firm-level CSR predicted employee job satisfaction and affective commitment, mediated by employee perceptions of their relational social capital (e.g., the quality of their work relationships). Although these findings do not provide evidence about whether and the extent to which individual-level reactions to CSR can explain variability in meso-level relationships between CSR and firm performance, Suh's (2016) methodology offers guidance to researchers interested in this topic. Extending this design approach, we believe there is considerable value in measuring CSR at both the meso-level (i.e., using an objective measure of a firm's CSR) and the individual-level (i.e., using a perceptual measure of stakeholder beliefs about a firm's CSR). By including both types of CSR measures in multilevel research, scholars can begin to explore practically important research questions, such as investigations of the factors that explain convergence and divergence between a firm's actual CSR practices and how they are perceived by individual stakeholders.

As several Research Topic articles highlight, micro-CSR research shows that individual-level stakeholder reactions to CSR are driven, at least in part, by each individual's perceptions and beliefs about the nature and extent of a firm's CSR practices (e.g., Glavas, 2016b; Hameed et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2016; Seivwright and Unsworth, 2016; Voliotis et al., 2016). Scholars have emphasized the importance of focusing on individuals' perceptions of CSR when attempting to understand individual reactions to CSR (e.g., El Akremi et al., 2015; Glavas, 2016a), and we assert that an individual's reactions to CSR are driven less by CSR practices as they objectively exist, and more by how that individual perceives them to exist (see P5 in **Table 1**). As such, most types of stakeholder reactions are bounded by the extent to which a firm can effectively communicate about its CSR practices to individuals, and how those individuals perceive and interpret those practices (see P6 in **Table 1**). While beyond the scope of this article, effective CSR communication is critically important to realizing its potential value to various stakeholders—including shareholders and owners. We direct readers to Du et al. (2010) for an excellent discussion of the importance of communicating about CSR commitment, impact, fit, motives, and other factors.

As reflected in **Figure 1**, individual-level processes can exert positive and negative influence on the direction and strength of meso-level relationships between CSR and corporate performance, which we illustrate through research propositions presented in **Table 1** that build on findings from some of the Research Topic articles. Our intent is not to review the nuanced findings from the Research Topic articles, but to focus on the overall micro-level processes they highlight. For instance, personality and values affect stakeholder reactions to CSR, such that individual stakeholders tend to respond more positively when they have a stronger calling orientation (Hameed et al., 2016) and other orientation (Bridoux et al., 2016); while important, for the present purposes we focus on the broader individual-level processes demonstrated by the Research Topic articles.

Starting with reactions to CSR among prospective employees, findings from Jones et al. (2016) suggest that individual-level processes among job seekers likely influence firm-level effects of CSR on corporate performance. CSR can be leveraged to attract more applicants, thereby increasing the size of the applicant pool. In turn, by improving a firm's chances of hiring talented employees (Ployhart, 2006; Breaugh, 2008), CSR practices can enhance the quality of the firm's human capital. Variability in the extent to which firms leverage their CSR during employee recruitment in accordance with these micro-level processes, we assert, can explain some of the variability in the meso-level relationships between firm-level CSR practices and corporate performance. That is, the meso-level effect of CSR on corporate performance will be stronger among firms that communicate their CSR practices in ways that come to the attention of job seekers, and that lead job seekers to infer higher levels of perceived value fit, favorable employee treatment, a positive work environment, and desirable characteristics and values among their prospective coworkers (see P7 in **Table 1**). Conversely, the meso-level effect of CSR on corporate performance will be weaker to the extent that the messages job seekers receive about the firm's

CSR do not lead them to make such inferences, especially to the extent that job seekers remain unaware of the firm's CSR practices in the first place.

Bridoux et al.'s (2016) study of stakeholder reactions to CSR tradeoffs also focused on reactions among job seekers, as well reactions among potential customers. Their findings suggest that these two stakeholder groups tend to respond positively to CSR to the extent it enhances their trust in the organization, especially when the firm's investments in CSR favors their own stakeholder group (see P8 in **Table 1**). Accordingly, corporate leaders should strive to allocate sufficient resources to CSR in a manner that targets the stakeholder groups on which the firm strongly depends, and they should communicate about the firm's CSR in ways that demonstrate trustworthiness. In doing so, a firm can leverage its CSR to attract talented workers and enhance customer loyalty, and ultimately improve its human capital and market share. To operationalize CSR tradeoffs and assess such multilevel processes and effects, researchers could collect objective indicators of corporate performance and firm-level investments in multiple types of CSR practices, which is a legally mandated reporting requirement in some countries (e.g., Pakistan). Researchers could also collect individual-level survey data to measure trust and trustworthiness to assess whether firm-level CSR tradeoffs have effects on individual-level trust among important stakeholder groups that might ultimately shape meso-level CSR-corporate performance relationships.

Most of the other Research Topic articles focus on responses to CSR among incumbent employees, such as engagement and other indicators of employee commitment and performance that are known to contribute to corporate performance. Glavas (2016b) showed that employees have higher levels of engagement—an important motivator of employee performance (Rich et al., 2010)—when their employer's overall CSR practices allow them to demonstrate authenticity by bringing more aspects of their whole selves to work (see P9 in **Table 1**; and see Seivwright and Unsworth, 2016 for insights about the interplay between employees' experience of CSR and the meaning they find through their work). Hameed et al. (2016) demonstrated that internal and external CSR practices can foster employees' sense of internal respect and their perception of their employer's external prestige, which ultimately enhanced employees' organizational identification, which is known to motivate employee commitment and performance (see P10 in **Table 1**). Jones (2016) reported evidence that employees who participate in corporate volunteering can develop work-related skills that relate to job performance, such as teamwork, project management, time management, public speaking, and leadership skills (see P11 in **Table 1**). Given that firms allocate meaningful resources toward training and professional development, these findings raise the possibility that companies can achieve some of the same ends through alternative investments in communityfocused CSR practices that may simultaneously create additional value for the firm through reputation enhancement. Russell et al.'s (2016) intervention study showed that employees were encouraged to reduce their energy use at work when managers role modeled commitment to environmental practices, provided prompts and reminders, and communicated to create a culture of energy conservation (see P12 in **Table 1**).

These articles illustrate positive employee responses to multiple types of CSR practices directed toward different stakeholder groups. Overall, these findings suggest that positive meso-level relationships between firm CSR and corporate performance are enhanced by micro-level processes among individual stakeholders through which CSR practices: (1) become known to stakeholders, (2) attract job seekers by informing their inferences about value fit and other matters, (3) create trust that promotes desirable reactions among job seekers and customers, and (4) fosters positive employee attitudes and behaviors such as employee engagement, organizational identification, workrelated skills, and reduced energy use at work. To the extent a firm's CSR practices are managed and perceived in ways that foster these and other micro-level processes, the mesolevel relationship between a firm's CSR practices and corporate performance will be increasingly positive and robust.

### Micro-level Processes That Contribute to Negative Meso-level CSR-corporate Performance Relationships

Almost all CSR practices require short- and long-term investments of firm resources, and firms also incur associated opportunity costs that affect its corporate performance. In this context, when CSR practices are not managed or communicated well, any potentially positive returns from CSR are diminished. Moreover, research propositions 13 through 16 (see **Table 1**) highlight that some stakeholders can respond negatively to CSR practices, which can ultimately weaken the otherwise positive meso-level effects of CSR on corporate performance.

To date, the vast majority of micro-CSR studies have documented positive stakeholder responses to CSR practices that plausibly contribute to positive meso-level relationships with corporate performance. The authors of four Research Topic articles, however, conceptually explore and empirically demonstrate that negative individual-level stakeholder responses to CSR practices also occur (Bridoux et al., 2016; Glavas, 2016b; Jones et al., 2016; Voliotis et al., 2016). Voliotis et al. (2016) developed a model of stakeholder perceptions and reactions to companies that engage in socially responsible vs. socially irresponsible practices, and we believe some of their arguments can be extended to contexts in which individual stakeholders can come to very different conclusions about a single firm's CSR practices. Voliotis et al. (2016) noted that people tend to stereotype for-profit companies as being generally unconcerned about communal pursuits and contributing to society beyond providing economic opportunities (e.g., hiring employees) and meeting consumer needs (e.g., selling products and services). Relatedly, Unsworth et al. (2016) reported that survey respondents identified 'industry/companies' as the actor who bears the greatest responsibility for climate change. As such, some internal and external stakeholders may be predisposed to perceiving any corporate activity as inherently irresponsible, priming them to react with mistrust and suspicion toward a given firm's CSR practices (see P13 in **Table 1**). Indeed, research

on CSR attributions shows that consumers and employees can hold widely different views about a company's motives for its CSR initiatives, resulting in correspondingly positive and negative reactions to the company's CSR practices (e.g., Vlachos et al., 2010). Glavas (2016b) found that when CSR is extra-role (e.g., volunteering) it can lead to negative effects on employee engagement. For a smaller number of hours in volunteering (i.e., 1–12 h per year), there was a positive effect on employees but as the hours increased, employees felt role strain and CSR became a burden. These findings suggest that the impact of CSR on employees varies depending on how it is embedded in their jobs (i.e., whether CSR-related behaviors are in-role vs. extra-role).

As Aguinis and Glavas (2013) suggested, a company often implements its CSR practices in various ways and to varying degrees throughout its different divisions and functional areas. As such, while some employees might be exposed to substantive value-creating CSR practices that clearly benefit multiple stakeholders, other employees within the same firm might only be exposed to largely symbolic and superficial CSR practices that they view with cynicism and skepticism (Willness and Jones, 2013). Such cynicism and skepticism about a firm's CSR practices was uncovered in one Research Topic article focusing on job seeker reactions to CSR. Specifically, Jones et al. (2016)reported meaningful differences in people's interpretations of a single firm's community-focused and environmentally sustainable practices. While about two-thirds of the participants claimed they were more attracted to the employer because of its CSR practices, the remaining third reported being largely unaffected by the CSR information—including some people who described cynicism and skepticism about CSR. This study was conducted in an employee recruitment context, and other research suggests that cynicism and skepticism about CSR also exists among consumers (Du et al., 2010). Accordingly, an important boundary condition that likely weakens the potentially positive meso-level relationships between CSR and corporate performance is the extent to which job seekers, consumers, and other individual stakeholders are cynical or skeptical about a firm's CSR practices. When pervasive, these negative stakeholder reactions might result in a negative effect of firm-level CSR on corporate performance (see P14 in **Table 1**). Specific factors contributing to such cynicism and skepticism are discussed in the Jones et al. (2016) Research Topic article and elsewhere (e.g., Du et al., 2010; Vlachos et al., 2010; Willness and Jones, 2013).

In another Research Topic article, Bridoux et al. (2016) documented another context in which some stakeholders react negatively to a firm's practices: CSR tradeoffs. Their overall pattern of results suggests that consumers and job seekers can react negatively when they believe a company favors other stakeholder groups over their own based on its differential investments and focus in its portfolio of CSR practices (see P15 in **Table 1**). Another Research Topic article uncovered potentially negative responses among a different stakeholder group: a firm's employees. Glavas (2016b) tested two mediators of the relationship between a firm's overall CSR practices and employee engagement. His findings suggest that the effects of CSR through other-oriented mechanisms tend to result in more positive employee reactions compared to effects through more self-oriented mechanisms (see P16 in **Table 1**).

In our review of insights from Research Topic articles in this and the preceding subsection, we illustrated ways in which microlevel processes can lead to positive and negative reactions to CSR among a firm's internal and external stakeholders. While little evidence exists to estimate the extent of their influence, we speculate that the net effect of unmeasured positive and negative stakeholder reactions may be the primary "culprit" underlying the mixed results found in meso-level research on firm CSR practices and corporate performance (Peloza, 2009; Wood, 2010). We hope meso-oriented CSR scholars find value in our examples of pertinent micro-level processes that can inform multilevel research that advances the CSR literature. We now turn to another important topic in CSR research that has received relatively little attention, and that lends itself to multilevel theory and research that incorporates processes at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of analysis.

### Micro-level Processes and Meso-level Effects of CSR on Macro-level Societal Impact

There is a pervasive, and sometimes unfounded, belief that corporate-level decisions to invest in CSR initiatives rest entirely on the presence of a compelling "business case" (Hafenbrädl and Waeger, 2016). We believe that, in reality, corporate decisions to invest in CSR are often more nuanced than most people probably assume. CSR allocation decisions are not made by "corporations," but by business leaders who, like most other people, have multiple motives underlying most of the things they do, including their decisions to pursue a CSR agenda (Aguilera et al., 2007). Many business leaders with whom we (the authors) have interacted demonstrate some degree of genuine concern and care for societal impact, and especially for the stakeholders directly affected by the company's operations and practices; and other business leaders with whom we've interacted appear to be driven more by instrumental motives linked to risk mitigation and short-term profit.

We have little reason to doubt that the "business case" for CSR plays a major role in how CSR initiatives are resourced and managed in most for-profit companies, and there remains substantive debate about the role of business in society and the extent to which companies should engage in CSR—or not (e.g., Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky, 2015). Our contention, however, is that this largely unchallenged assumption is so widely held among CSR scholars that they have focused much of their research energy on the meso-level relationship between firm CSR practices and corporate financial performance (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012), and they have done so at the expense of understanding the actual impact of CSR practices on external stakeholders and society at large (Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Wood, 2010). Scholars have called for multilevel theories and studies of CSR (e.g., Glavas, 2016a), and we urge researchers to include macro-level societal impact in these efforts. To borrow a phrase from Aguilera et al. (2007), we as a scientific community need to bring the "S" (i.e., society) back into CSR research.

Some of the 12 Research Topic articles specifically point to micro-level processes that have implications for societal impact. For instance, Voliotis et al. (2016) focus on how stakeholders perceive and react to companies that engage in socially responsible and socially irresponsible practices; the Jones (2016) article suggests that non-profits can leverage the increasing prevalence of corporate volunteerism programs to better achieve their missions by designing opportunities for employee volunteers to improve their work-related skills and, by extension, attract more interest from corporate partners; and the Russell et al. (2016) study provides practical guidance to firms seeking to reduce their energy consumption through individual employee behavior. The findings from most of the Research Topic articles, however, do not easily translate into insights for macro-level CSR research on the influence of broader economic, institutional, and societal contexts per se (e.g., Matten and Moon, 2008; Frynas and Stephens, 2015). In perhaps one exception, Unsworth et al.'s (2016) study illuminates stakeholder reactions that can inform regulatory policy about environmental practices, such as adhering to toxic waste disposal bylaws or emissions reporting requirements.

The multilevel model shown in **Figure 1**, however, does have a more general implication pertaining to the role of individual-level reactions in the effects of firm-level CSR practices on macro-level societal impact. We acknowledge that CSR practices, no matter the intentions and motives that prompted them, do not necessarily create positive societal impact. For instance, CSR practices likely have unintended consequences that can create negative societal impact. Moreover, as companies increase their investments in CSR over time, it might reduce societal support for government programs as a means to address societal ills. We think it is likely, however, that the net effect of companies' CSR programs is generally positive for employees, consumers, communities, and the natural environment.

We believe that insights about micro-level processes can meaningfully inform the strategic management of CSR practices to generate greater financial returns through positive stakeholder reactions. As firms reap economic benefits from well-managed CSR practices, they become increasingly motivated and able to invest additional resources to expand their CSR practices. To the extent this "virtuous cycle" between CSR and corporate

### REFERENCES


performance (Orlitzky et al., 2003) leads a firm to increase its CSR investments over time, the potential result is increasingly greater social value and macro-level societal impact created by the firm's CSR practices. In this way, insights about microlevel stakeholder reactions that inform how CSR practices can be managed to create stronger financial returns may indirectly promote macro-level societal impact.

### CONCLUDING COMMENTS

In recent years, there has been a veritable explosion of micro-CSR research, and a rising recognition of the important role these processes play in affecting CSR practices and corporate performance. Through co-editing a Research Topic collection, we sought to facilitate additional advancements in micro-CSR theory and research, and herein we described some of the "new frontiers" these articles explored and created. We also sought to fulfill a "quid pro quo" by drawing on insights from the micro-oriented Research Topic articles to help explain variability in meso (firm)-level relationships between CSR practices and corporate performance. Our hope is that we have helped to build stronger bridges that can—and should—exist between micro-, meso-, and macro-oriented research on CSR.

As Frederick (2016: 2) stated "Now, a new CSR stage—CSR5: Sustainability (2000–2050)—began with the opening of the new millennium. . .. I believe that an integrated, holistic solution will be sought, and hopefully found, by a coalition of 'policy-makers' and 'people.' I invite and urge you to read the papers in this collection to discover how the 'Policy to People' goal can be approached and eventually attained."

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed equally to this work.

### FUNDING

This research was funded in part by the Nicole Maria Stata Summer Research Award awarded to David A. Jones.


organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. J. Manag. 39, 853–877. doi: 10.1177/0149206311419662



**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2017 Jones, Willness and Glavas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Commentary: Corporate Social Responsibility: Deep Roots, Flourishing Growth, Promising Future

William C. Frederick \*

*Katz Graduate School of Business, Pittsburgh, PA, USA*

Keywords: CSR stages, philanthropy, citizenship, regulation, sustainability

#### **A commentary on**

### **"Corporate social responsibility: deep roots, flourishing growth, promising future," in The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Chapter 23**

by Frederick, W. C. (2008). eds A. Crane, A. Williams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. S. Siegel (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.), 522–531.

#### Edited by:

*Ante Glavas, Kedge Business School, France*

> Reviewed by: *Sandra Waddock, Boston College, USA*

\*Correspondence: *William C. Frederick billfred@katz.pitt.edu*

#### Specialty section:

*This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology*

Received: *28 December 2015* Accepted: *25 January 2016* Published: *15 February 2016*

#### Citation:

*Frederick WC (2016) Commentary: Corporate Social Responsibility: Deep Roots, Flourishing Growth, Promising Future. Front. Psychol. 7:129. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00129* This commentary expands upon an article of mine: "Corporate Social Responsibility: Deep Roots, Flourishing Growth, Promising Future," published in 2008. The main goals of my commentary are to describe two levels of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)—macro and micro—and to advocate the need to integrate the two levels into a holistic analysis of CSR (Frederick, 2008).

The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility emerged in the United States at mid-twentieth century, advocated by both academic scholars and corporate executives. In 1951, Frank Abrams, chairman of the board of directors of America's largest oil company, advocated a "harmonious balance among stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large" which is the very core of CSR's meaning. In 1953, a business school dean, Howard Bowen, wrote The Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, which was the first book to capture and summarize the main ideas about CSR (Frederick, 2006).

From that early beginning, the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility evolved in a series of stages:


It is important to see that these CSR ideas and their proposed actions were aimed primarily at top-level managers and members of the firm's board of directors. Board members set the firm's

<sup>1</sup>Details of each CSR stage may be found in Crane et al., 524–528.

policies, and the executive managers were responsible for putting those policies into action. In other words, CSR began with a "macro" focus that emphasized broad firm-wide policies, thereby laying the responsibility for attaining CSR results directly on top-level managers and the overall strategies they adopted. This was certainly the case during the first two stages of CSR development—CSR<sup>1</sup> and CSR2—and even well into the CSR<sup>3</sup> era. This firm-wide "macro" approach was intended to dampen and counteract the increasing numbers of social protests, new government regulations, and corporate scandals that focused a bright light on corporate misdeeds and socially irresponsible actions during the 1960, 1970, and 1980s<sup>2</sup> .

Whereas "Macro-CSR" focuses on top-level corporate policies and strategies, the focus of "Micro-CSR" is on the actual effects and impacts of those policies on people both inside and outside the corporation. In other words, what does Macro-CSR actually accomplish for the firm's employees, suppliers, customers, and citizens both local and far away? Surprisingly, the research literature of CSR deals mainly with "Macro-CSR" and far less with "Micro-CSR" issues<sup>3</sup> .

To fill that gap, the articles in this collection explore the various dimensions and meanings of Micro-CorporateSocialResponsibility, drawing upon a range of multidisciplinary concepts and research from the fields of organizational behavior, human relations, and psychology. Macro-CSR policies clearly have an impact on "people": individual employees along the entire supply-chain (workers' human rights, decent working conditions, adequate pay), while

### REFERENCES


similar policies and programs underwrite housing, meals, childcare, and healthcare for needy families and individuals at the Micro-CSR "people" level<sup>4</sup> .

Now, a new CSR stage—**CSR5**: **Sustainability** (2000–2050) began with the opening of the new millennium. This stage reaches far beyond just the business corporation and its stakeholders, involving also the worldwide responsibilities of governments, international, and community organizations, and citizens from around the entire globe. Literally, Earthly life as we know it is now threatened and endangered by global warming, climate changes, rising ocean levels, and unlivable environmental pollution. Is Earthly Life itself sustainable? What will it take to attain that goal? Will "macro" global policies protect people at the "micro" level? I believe that an integrated, holistic solution will be sought, and hopefully found, by a coalition of "policy-makers" and "people"<sup>5</sup> .

I invite and urge you to read the papers in this collection to discover how the "Policy to People" goal can be approached and eventually attained.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Frederick. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

<sup>2</sup>For a list of the major CSR missteps by corporations in this period, see "Landmark CSR Episodes and Crises" in Frederick, Corporation, Be Good!, 311–312.

<sup>3</sup>But changes were in the CSR wind. The most important shift toward a more inclusive view was R. Edward Freeman's pioneering concept of "stakeholder" in Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Marshfield, Massachusetts: Pitman Publishing, 1984), and the subsequent research that applied that concept to a wide range of stakeholders affected by corporate strategies. However, Freeman's main focus in the mid-1980s, as indicated by the book's title, was on top-level strategic management, i.e., clearly, the "macro" dimension of CSR.

<sup>4</sup>Many other examples of Micro-CSR are described in Wayne Visser, Dirk Matten, Manfred Pohl, Nick Tolhurst (Editors), The A to Z of Corporate Socil Responsibility : A Complete Reference Guide to Concepts, Codes and Organizations. (Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2007). See, for example, entries on Empowerment (of marginalized citizens), Health and Safety (of workers), Human Security (of people and their communities), Indigenous People (land rights, dignity), Labor Issues (in the workplace), Poverty (local and global), etc.

<sup>5</sup>For a comprehensive account of sustainability and its management, see Zabihollah Rezaee, Business Sustainability : Performance, Compliance, Accountability and Integrated Reporting (Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing, Ltd., 2015). For an analysis and discussion of sustainability challenges and opportunities facing corporate managers, see Chapter 10 in William C. Frederick, Natural Corporate Management : From the Big Bang to Wall Street, Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing, Ltd., 2012.

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 1

# Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review

### Ante Glavas\*

Department of Corporate Social Responsibility, Strategy and Entrepreneurship, KEDGE Business School, Marseille, France

The author reviews the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature that includes the individual level of analysis (referred to as micro CSR in the article) based on 166 articles, book chapters, and books. A framework is provided that integrates organizational psychology and CSR, with the purpose of highlighting synergies in order to advance scholarship and practice in both fields. The review is structured so that first, a brief overview is provided. Second, the literatures on organizational psychology and CSR are integrated. Third, gaps are outlined illuminating opportunities for future research. Finally, a research agenda is put forward that goes beyond addressing gaps and focuses on how organizational psychology and CSR can be partners in helping move both fields forward—specifically, through a humanistic research agenda rooted in positive psychology.

#### Edited by:

Darren Good, Pepperdine University, USA

#### Reviewed by:

Latha Poonamallee, Michigan Technological University, USA Catherine S. Daus, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, USA

#### \*Correspondence:

Ante Glavas ante.glavas@kedgebs.com

#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 23 July 2015 Accepted: 26 January 2016 Published: 16 February 2016

#### Citation:

Glavas A (2016) Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review. Front. Psychol. 7:144. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144 Keywords: corporate social responsibility, sustainability, organizational psychology, organizational behavior, human resources, industrial and organizational psychology (I–O psychology), corporate citizenship, social entrepreneurship

### INTRODUCTION

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an increasingly important topic for organizations. Almost every major organization is engaged to some extent in CSR. Ninety-three percent of the world's largest companies formally report on CSR (KPMG, 2013) and it is not just limited to North America or Western Europe. For example, 69% of companies in India report on CSR, 64% in Vietnam, 60% in Philippines, and 52% in Mexico (Grant Thornton, 2013). In fact, as of 2009, more than 15% of the CSR reports in the world have originated in China (Marquis and Qian, 2014).

In parallel, the growth of the scholarly CSR literature has been exponential. In a review of the literature, Aguinis and Glavas (2012) found that over half of the peer-reviewed articles on CSR have been published in the last decade. Although most of the extant literature on CSR is at the macro (i.e., organizational) level (Lee, 2008), an increasing interest has been shown in the micro level of CSR (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012) and as seen in **Figure 1**. Moreover, in a survey of organizational psychologists conducted by the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, CSR was viewed as one of the top trends affecting the workplace (Below, 2014). In addition, special issues have been published recently on the intersection of CSR and organizational psychology in leading journals such as Personnel Psychology (Morgeson et al., 2013), Journal of Organizational Behavior (Andersson et al., 2013), Management and Organizations (Rupp et al., 2011), and a research topic published in Frontiers in Psychology (Glavas et al., in review). Therefore, this review answers the calls of Aguinis (2011) and Aguinis and Glavas (2013a) to further create synergies between the fields of organizational psychology and CSR.

Despite the growing body of research on the intersection of organizational psychology and CSR (hereinafter referred to as micro CSR), there is a need for micro CSR research (Aguilera et al., 2007; Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Rupp et al., 2013b) and thus an opportunity for involvement of organizational psychologists. As a preview of what I will outline in this manuscript, there are several gaps in the CSR literature, which also present an opportunity for new avenues of research. First, CSR has been primarily studied at the macro and institutional levels, but more studies are needed to understand how CSR influences employees. Second, even when CSR has been studied at the individual level of analysis, it has been primarily on the antecedents to employee involvement in CSR or the impact of CSR on employee outcomes (e.g., engagement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors). Therefore, a major gap is the exploration of mediators and moderators of the CSR–employee outcome relationship. Simply put, we know that CSR has an effect on employees but we know less about why, how, and when. Third, although there are a few conceptual models that do propose more complex models of CSR (i.e., with multiple mediators and mediators), they are lacking the rigor of empirical testing, which is an area that organizational psychologists can partner with those in CSR. Fourth, there is a major gap between CSR theory and practice. While corporations are forging ahead with CSR, at the same time, they are struggling with implementing CSR—this offers an opportunity for organizational psychologists to put forward and test theory that can then be translated into models and frameworks useful for practice.

On the other hand, not only could CSR benefit from the involvement of organizational psychologists, but organizational psychologists could also greatly benefit from engaging in novel and interesting research by integrating CSR. This is especially possible if CSR in not treated as a specialty field (i.e., a separate field of study) but rather as a context within which scholars can study work in a new light (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013a). For example, scholars have found that employees are motivated by more than financial goals (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Eisenberger and Cameron, 1996), yet the field of organizational psychology has primarily focused on how employees can contribute to financial productivity and improve organizational performance (Weiss and Rupp, 2011; Hulin, 2014). As Aguinis and Glavas (2013a) stated, organizational psychology has much to offer but is often limited by those in power (i.e., management) to a focus on what produces short-term performance. The authors further propose that if organizational psychology is integrated with CSR (e.g., focus on well-being of employees and long-term performance, not just short-term performance), a more sustainable employee-employer relationship might result.

In order to integrate organizational psychology with CSR, the manuscript is structured as follows. First, I give a brief overview of CSR for those scholars not familiar with the field. The overview can even be useful for scholars who are familiar with CSR as it can improve understanding of why the field of CSR is where it is today. Second, I integrate the extant CSR literature together with organizational psychology. Finally, I put forward a research agenda for organizational psychology and CSR with a focus on potentially novel and interesting synergies.

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 2

## BRIEF OVERVIEW OF CSR

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 3

A detailed overview of CSR is beyond the scope of this article (for reviews, see Carroll, 1999, 2008; Waddock, 2004; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). For purposes of this review, I briefly outline a few key trends that inform why and how organizational psychology and CSR can be integrated.

### Evolution from a Focus on Institutional and Macro to a Need for the Micro Level of Analysis

First, the role of the firm has been a central debate from the beginning of CSR scholarly literature (e.g., Berle, 1931; Dodd, 1932) that has continued (Friedman, 1970; The Economist, 2005). The main question being asked, often implicitly, is whether firms have a role in society beyond economic profit.

Second, a related debate was whether CSR is normative (i.e., it is the duty of organizations to engage in CSR) and/or instrumental (i.e., it is in the interest of organizations to engage in CSR). If CSR is normative, then firms have a moral obligation to society to care for its well-being (e.g., Goodpaster, 1991; Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Other scholars have argued for an integrated view of both normative and instrumental (Swanson, 1995; Jones and Wicks, 1999).

Third, perhaps as a result of the ongoing debates, a major focus of CSR research was to avoid this conflict and to prove once and for all that CSR positively influences financial performance. Then the reasons for engaging in CSR (e.g., normative and/or instrumental) would not matter and the role of the firm would not be questioned (i.e., CSR is about doing good for both the firm and society). However, inconclusive results were found regarding the relationship between CSR and firm financial performance (Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Peloza, 2009; Wood, 2010).

These three aforementioned trends highlight the need for micro CSR research. One of the reasons for inconclusive results is that when CSR is aggregated to the macro level, the variance of both positive and negative effects on employees is not captured (Glavas and Kelley, 2014). Through micro CSR research, it is possible to unpack the results and find that CSR may under certain conditions influence some employees positively, while others negatively (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013b). Therefore, scholarship benefits by understanding these more complex findings because more holistic models of CSR can be built. Practice also benefits because firms interested in CSR can build models that enforce positive effects of CSR and minimize the negative effects.

Moreover, the debates on the role of the firm in society might be taking place at the micro level as well. CSR could be opening up questions regarding the role of work for employees (e.g., is it to secure economic profit and/or to also have a positive impact on the world). Due to the depth of these questions, it is possible that how employees perceive CSR and its importance to their own lives will vary greatly. CSR thus opens up a context within which to study numerous topics in organizational psychology such as the importance of self-concept, purpose at work, values alignment, and career development.

As a result, scholars have increasingly become more interested in micro CSR, as can be seen in **Figure 1**. Over two-thirds of the articles in micro CSR have been published in the last five years.

### Evolution of Conceptualizations of CSR

Reflecting the trends outlined in the previous section, conceptualizations of CSR have been primarily at the institutional, and macro levels (Lee, 2008). Moreover, there have been many overlapping and sometimes confusing definitions of CSR due to the various schools of thought (Carroll, 1999; Waddock, 2004). For example, in a review, Peloza (2009) found that 36 distinct measurements of CSR have been employed. Many terms have been used interchangeably with CSR such as corporate citizenship, corporate social performance, stakeholder theory, sustainability, and sustainable development to name a few. For purposes of this article, I use the definition of Glavas and Kelley (2014, p. 171) which builds on Waddock's (2004) definition:

[CSR] is defined as caring for the well-being of others and the environment with the purpose of also creating value for the business. CSR is manifested in the strategies and operating practices that a company develops in operationalizing its relationships with and impacts on the well-being of all of its key stakeholders and the natural environment.

### Conceptualizations of CSR

What is relevant for scholars of micro CSR is that no one definition is commonly accepted, which presents both a challenge and opportunity. The challenge is that the lack of clarity makes it difficult to generalize CSR results. This confusion also makes it even more important for scholars to precisely define what they mean by CSR in their studies. However, the opportunity is that because CSR is so broad, there is the potential for huge variance in how employees perceive CSR. For example, some employees might perceive CSR as the moral duty of a firm (e.g., care for the environment, fair wages for workers in the supply chain), while others might feel that CSR should only be used to improve relationships with key stakeholders. Then these differing perceptions could affect employee work attitudes and behaviors in varying degrees.

### Taxonomy of CSR

In order to gain clarity for research purposes, scholars have developed different classifications of CSR, of which I outline three common categories. The first is whether CSR is focused purely on shareholder gains or if it is focused on the well-being of all stakeholders (i.e., person, group, or organization that can affect or be affected by an organization), including shareholders—referred to as sustainable value (Figge and Hahn, 2004; Laszlo, 2008). The second is whether CSR is symbolic or substantive (Meyer and Rowan, 1977)—David et al. (2007) build on the definition of Ashforth and Gibbs (1990) to define substantive as real change while symbolic change just creates the appearance of change while no actual change takes place. The third is whether CSR is peripheral or embedded in the firm—where embedded CSR is integrated into the strategy as well as daily operations (Laszlo and Zhexembayeva, 2011; Aguinis and Glavas, 2013b).

### Measurement of CSR

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 4

By combining the previous two sections (i.e., conceptualizations and taxonomies of CSR), some of the challenges for organizational psychologists in measuring CSR become evident. Most of the theoretical approaches have been at the macro level of analysis—as a result, measurements of CSR have been at the macro level as well (Glavas and Kelley, 2014). In other words, the actual perceptions of employees of their company's CSR have not been adequately captured.

In addition, the aforementioned taxonomy of CSR informs measurement. As Aguinis and Glavas (2013b) put forward, if CSR is embedded, it inherently includes the micro level of analysis. In other words, CSR is part of the daily operations and every employee has some sort of contact with CSR. Most likely, the degree of CSR embeddedness will vary throughout the company, which then in turn means that the perception of employees of their company's CSR will vary (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013b). That is why it is crucial to measure an employee's perception of CSR (for a scale measuring stakeholder, substantive, and embedded CSR, see Glavas and Kelley, 2014; for a multidimensional scale see El Akremi et al., in press). Once an employee's perception of CSR is measured, then the impact of the perceptions of CSR on employees can be measured.

Not only might employee perceptions of CSR vary, but the resulting influence of their perception on their work attitudes and behavior might vary as well. For example, some employees might perceive that if CSR is not substantive, it is then greenwashing (i.e., inauthentic) which in turn could negatively influence their perceptions of values fit with the organization. On the other hand, some employees might only care about the impact of CSR on the reputation of the organization, so for them symbolic CSR could have a positive impact on their organizational identification. Moreover, if CSR is perceived as being instrumental, some employees might be positively affected because they only care about CSR if it creates value for the company. Another possibility is that some employees might believe that CSR should only be normative (i.e., based on a moral agenda), so they will perceive that making money on CSR is hypocritical. As can be seen in these last few examples, why and how CSR impacts employees depends heavily on individual differences, what is meaningful to employees, how they construct their self-concepts, and many other individual factors—all of which are areas of organizational psychology. In sum, organizational psychology could help take CSR to a deeper level of understanding.

### INTEGRATING CSR AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

In the following section, I review the CSR literature at the individual level of analysis. Although there is no review to my knowledge on micro CSR, studies of micro CSR will often include a brief overview of the extant literature (for examples, see Aguinis and Glavas, 2013b; Rupp et al., 2013b; El Akremi et al., in press). Therefore, I try to go beyond simply summarizing the literature. Instead, I focus on integrating the extant CSR and organizational psychology literatures with the purpose being to highlight synergies that could expand our understanding of work in general. Because of length limitations, I do not cover every single article published in micro CSR. Rather I will focus on a few key themes. A more detailed overview can be found in **Figure 2**. Please note although **Figure 2** is the result of a comprehensive literature review, it is not exhaustive. Moreover, it only includes empirical research on incumbent employees—which, as will be explained later, potentially offers numerous research opportunities for organizational psychologists. The purpose of **Figure 2** is twofold. Scholars can quickly see what we know, what the gaps are, and thus envision future research that might expand the current literature. Second, **Figure 2** is also a quick guide for scholars interested in a specific domain of micro CSR, in which they can quickly get a grasp of the literature in that domain.

### Outcomes

As can be seen in **Figure 2**, CSR has numerous positive effects on employees. For example, scholars have found a positive relationship between CSR and organizational commitment (Peterson, 2004; Brammer et al., 2007; Grant et al., 2008; Mueller et al., 2012; Farooq et al., 2014a; Glavas and Kelley, 2014; Ditlev-Simonsen, 2015) as well as job satisfaction (Gavin and Maynard, 1975; Valentine and Fleischman, 2008; Vlachos et al., 2013; Glavas and Kelley, 2014).

Other positive relationships between CSR and outcomes have been found. For example CSR is positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB: Jones, 2010; Evans et al., 2011; Hansen et al., 2011; Rupp et al., 2013b; Shen and Benson, 2014). These findings suggest that if the organization goes above and beyond its primary task (i.e., financial goals) to contribute to the greater good of society (i.e., CSR), then employees will go above and beyond their primary tasks to contribute to the greater good of the organization (i.e., OCBs).

In addition, CSR is positively related to organizational identification (Houghton et al., 2009; Jones, 2010; Evans et al., 2011; De Roeck and Delobbe, 2012). These studies suggest that CSR improves an organization's reputation which in turn leads to employees being proud to work there. Also, social identity theory would suggest that if treating others well is part of an employee's self-concept, then they would find greater identification with an organization that treats others well (Dutton et al., 2010).

Corporate social responsibility has also been found to be positively related to high quality relationships among co-workers (Glavas and Piderit, 2009) as well as trust in relationships (Muthuri et al., 2009). These studies put forward a relational view of CSR in which CSR by its very nature includes caring for stakeholders. Therefore, it follows that organizations that put effort into creating quality relationships with external stakeholders could create a culture in which caring relationships inside the organization are important as well.

The previous outcomes are only a sampling of the potential outcomes. As shown in **Figure 2**, CSR is also positively related to other outcomes such as employee engagement (Glavas and Piderit, 2009; Caligiuri et al., 2013), creativity (Glavas and Piderit, fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 5

FIGURE 2 | Corporate social responsibility – outcomes relationship for incumbent employees with mediators, moderators.

2009; Brammer et al., 2015), turnover intent (Jones, 2010; Hansen et al., 2011), employee attachment (Lee et al., 2013), knowledge sharing behavior (Farooq et al., 2014a), employee capability development (Caligiuri et al., 2013), quality of management (Waddock and Graves, 1997), and needs fulfillment (Gavin and Maynard, 1975).

## Underlying Mechanisms

Although the majority of CSR research at the individual level of analysis has been focused on finding a relationship between CSR and employee outcomes, there are some studies which provide insight into the underlying mechanisms. These mechanisms are important to understand because if each employee is unique in his/her own psychological reactions, then it follows that his/her reactions to CSR will most likely vary. In addition, the underlying mechanisms also provide novel insights for organizational psychologists into aspects of an employee's work that was perhaps missing for the employee in their work (e.g., meaningfulness at work), but CSR was able to fill that gap (Glavas and Kelley, 2014).

### Whole Self

As seen from the mediators in **Figure 2**, one of the mechanisms through which CSR influences employees is by enabling them to bring more of their whole selves to work. Kahn (1990) put forward that the more that employees are able to bring their whole selves to work, the more they will be engaged. Rich et al. (2010) further expanded on Kahn's (1990) work and if these two studies are taken together, there are four key aspects of the whole self, which are also found among the mediators of the CSRoutcomes relationship: (a) psychological safety, (b) psychological availability, (c) values congruence, and (d) purpose.

Psychological safety helps employees show more of their whole selves at work. This is often the result of perceived organizational support, which has been found to be positively related to CSR (Glavas and Kelley, 2014). A related concept, trust in the organization, has also been found to be positively related to CSR (Hansen et al., 2011; De Roeck and Delobbe, 2012; Farooq et al., 2014b). In other words, CSR can provide nurturing and safe environments in which employees feel a safe space to show up more as who they truly are.

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 6

Second, psychological availability may stem from improved self-esteem as well as alignment of self-concept with the organization, which in turn enables employees to be more fully present at work. CSR has been found to be positively related to self-esteem (Bartel, 2001) as well as one's self-concept (Carmeli et al., 2007; Grant et al., 2008; Jones, 2010; Farooq et al., 2014a,b). Simply put, employees might feel good about themselves by working for an organization that is doing good in the world.

A third pathway through which employees can bring more of their whole selves to work is when they feel an alignment of their values with the organization. This is the opposite of what happens when employees perceive that the values in the workplace are simply words on paper such as in a marketing brochure. However, when organizations engage in substantive CSR, employees might believe more in the values of the organization and potentially find greater values congruence (Vlachos et al., 2013). For example, employees might increase their belief in organizational values such as caring, respect, integrity if the organization is carrying out substantive CSR.

The fourth and final aspect put forward by Kahn (1990) and Rich et al. (2010) is that it is important for some employees to feel as if work contributes to a greater purpose or to the common good. The argument is that most humans have an innate desire to have a sense of purpose but often do not find this at work; therefore, they are drawn to CSR as an avenue for contributing to a greater purpose (Hulin, 2014). Although this fourth aspect might be a significant source for bringing one's whole self to work through CSR, only one study has explored this empirically, finding a positive relationship between CSR and purpose (Glavas and Kelley, 2014).

### Self-Interest

Employees might perceive CSR to also be of self-interest. Because CSR by definition means that organizations take care of their key stakeholders, which also includes employees, organizations high in CSR usually provide better working conditions and benefits to employees (De Roeck and Delobbe, 2012; Shen and Benson, 2014; Ditlev-Simonsen, 2015). Scholars (e.g., Swanson, 1995; Jones and Wicks, 1999) have argued that self-interest (i.e., instrumental view) is a complementary perspective to the view that CSR is only about altruism (i.e., normative view) firms may benefit if employees perceive CSR to be of selfinterest. For example, social exchange theory has been used to posit that because organizations high in CSR invest more in employees, employees will give back more (e.g., Cropanzano and Rupp, 2008). Jones (2010) found that exchange ideology moderated the relationship between employee perceived benefits of CSR and OCBs. Similarly, Rupp et al. (2006) have proposed third-party justice effects of CSR. As Rupp (2011) put forward, organizational justice has traditionally explored how an employee is treated and then responds in turn; however, in thirdparty justice, similar effects can be found based on how the employee perceives that the organization treats others. When an employee perceives that their organization treats others fairly, they will in turn expect that same fair treatment toward themselves. Because Rupp et al. (2013a) define third-party justice as CSR, this view allows for an integration of the literature on organizational justice with CSR. The same underlying mechanisms in organizational justice might also apply to micro CSR. To be clear, organizational justice theory can be integrated in other ways as well with CSR (see Rupp et al., 2006; Cropanzano and Rupp, 2008).

### Morality

A different underlying mechanism is that CSR is simply the right thing to do. Although morality can be considered part of one's whole self, I am listing it separately here because of the literature it comes from (i.e., ethics). For example, Rupp et al. (2013b) found that moral identity moderates the relationship between CSR and outcomes. However, despite the obvious link to the ethics literature, the literatures on ethics and CSR have largely grown in parallel although there are some conceptual studies making the bridge between the two literatures (e.g., Godfrey, 2005; Aguilera et al., 2007; Rupp, 2011; Rupp et al., 2013a).

### Other Mechanisms

Individual differences influence how and why employees are influenced by CSR: For example, other-regarding values moderate the relationship between CSR and outcomes (Evans et al., 2011). Employee environmental values and communal orientation influence attraction to CSR (Jones et al., 2014). However, there are also counter-intuitive findings. In a metaanalysis Wiernik et al. (2013) found age to be positively related to employee involvement in CSR. This is counter to popular press which states that younger generations are more drawn to CSR (e.g., Meister, 2012; Seager, 2014). In addition, other individual differences such as gender have been found to moderate the relationship with CSR, such that females are more positively affected than males by fair working practices and the positive reputation (i.e., social responsibility) of the organization (Brammer et al., 2007). Finally, the differences between national cultures also has been explored, finding mixed results. Mueller et al. (2012) found that the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes is strengthened in cultures higher in institutional collectivism, humane orientation, in-group collectivism, future orientation, and lower in power distance. However, Farooq et al. (2014a) found that cultures high in individualism value community-related CSR. This might be a result of employees finding greater benefits from reputational effects of CSR.

### Antecedents to CSR

Although the focus of this review is not on what impacts CSR, a growing body of research been conducted on this topic. Therefore, I would be remiss in not covering this important topic because organizational psychologists have a lot to contribute to models of engaging employees in CSR. For example, theories on leadership could inform how leaders influence employees to engage in CSR (Snell, 2000). Moreover, supervisor support of CSR has been found to influence employee involvement in CSR (e.g., Weaver et al., 1999; Ramus and Steger, 2000; Hemingway and Maclagan, 2004). In addition, individual differences can also influence employee engagement in CSR such as values (Bansal, 2003; Hemingway, 2005), personality traits (Mudrack, 2007), age (Wiernik et al., 2013), and gender (Brammer et al., 2007).

For more details, numerous reviews exist on engaging employees in CSR (Aguinis, 2011; Ones and Dilchert, 2012; Norton et al., 2015). There have also been entire edited volumes (Jackson et al., 2012; Huffman and Klein, 2013) and even entire fields devoted to engagement in CSR such as humanitarian psychology and also environmental psychology (Gardner and Stern, 2002; Gifford, 2007; Koger and Du NaCnn Winter, 2010).

### Recruiting and CSR

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 7

A significant area of micro-CSR research that can inform the previous subsections on outcomes, underlying mechanisms, and antecedents of CSR is that of the relationship between CSR and firm attractiveness to prospective employees. This section is listed separately because it does not actually study incumbent employees. However, findings from the CSR recruiting literature do partially overlap with those from incumbent employees. Most of the CSR recruiting literature is guided by signaling and social identity theories, with scholars, for example, finding that CSR signals to prospective employees the values of the organization and thus the potential for values congruence (e.g., Gully et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2014). Moreover, CSR has been found to signal the organization's reputation which then resulted in increased pride (e.g., Jones et al., 2014). Also, CSR could signal to prospective employees that they can expect to be treated fairly (e.g., Montgomery and Ramus, 2011; Jones et al., 2014).

### Summary

In sum, employees are affected by CSR through a myriad of pathways. Therefore, it is important to go beyond the simplistic direct effect of CSR-outcomes in order to understand why, how, and when employees are affected by CSR. By doing so, scholars can build more complete models of CSR. At the same time, organizational psychologists might also find valuable insight into what moves employees at work and thus expand our current theories of work.

## GAPS

The previous sections point to a few evident gaps. In the following section, the gaps are analyzed with the goal of shaping a future research agenda.

### Research on Incumbent Employees

One of the major gaps is that despite the explosion of research in micro CSR (see **Figure 1**), little is known about how employees experience CSR. Of the 166 publications that were reviewed, only 28 (or about 1/6) studied incumbent employees and their experience of CSR. Almost as many studies focused on prospective employees (18) as on incumbent employees (28). Although we can learn a lot from prospective employees (e.g., the importance of values and firm reputation), more research is needed on incumbent employees.

## Underlying Mechanisms

Even when incumbent employees have been studied, usually it has been in a mechanistic fashion, trying to prove that CSR leads to positive employee outcomes without understanding how and why. As a result, there is growing body of research, as shown in **Figure 2**, showing that CSR leads to many individuallevel outcomes such as increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, OCBs, and organizational identification. However, out of the 28 empirical studies on incumbent employees, only 11 analyzed mediators and only 12 moderators, of which only three studies explored both mediators and moderators (Jones, 2010; De Roeck and Delobbe, 2012; Farooq et al., 2014a). Moreover, only two studies of incumbent employees studied multiple mediators (Farooq et al., 2014b; Glavas and Kelley, 2014). Therefore, even when underlying mechanisms are explored, there still has been a simplistic understanding with little knowledge of which mechanisms have a greater affect on employees and under what conditions. For example, perceived organizational support has been found to influence the relationship between CSR and employee outcomes (e.g., De Roeck and Delobbe, 2012; Shen and Benson, 2014; Ditlev-Simonsen, 2015). In other words, employees are positively influenced by CSR because they perceive that CSR will benefit them directly through better work conditions and other benefits. However, these studies included perceived organizational support as the only mediator. On the other hand, Glavas and Kelley (2014) found that although perceived organizational support—when it is the only mediator—does mediate the relationship between CSR and outcomes; however, when meaningfulness is added as a mediator, the effects of perceived organizational support are negligible while meaningfulness has the strongest impact. In sum, we lack more complete models to understand why, how, and when employees are affected by CSR.

### Theory Building

In my review of the literature, I found no empirical theorybuilding articles on how employees might psychologically experience CSR. There are two articles which used mixed methods and the content of these articles can loosely be defined as CSR (Bartel, 2001; Grant et al., 2008) and only one which is purely qualitative and it is a case study (Muthuri et al., 2009). We are missing studies similar to those conducted on antecedents of CSR (e.g., Bansal, 2003; Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008) in which theory emerged from the data.

Simply put, CSR research is taking established models of what drives behavior in the workplace (e.g., from organizational psychology) and testing them out on CSR. In fact, 90% of the articles on incumbent employees are quantitative and most of them empirically test models through surveys. Although quantitative studies do provide insight, additional insight could be gained by inductively studying why, how, and when CSR affects employees. We may be surprised to find that CSR opens up new ways of looking at our models of work.

### CSR as a Field in and of Itself

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 8

Corporate social responsibility has been a field that has been fairly closed off and separate (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012), which might be why organizational psychologists have not been more involved. Over half of the publications (94) explored antecedents of CSR action (i.e., how to drive employee involvement in CSR). Moreover, in the 28 studies that explored how CSR affected incumbent employees, less than half of the studies built on any theory outside of CSR. In other words, studies were conducted to show the direct effect of CSR on outcomes. In sum, CSR often has not integrated other fields; yet, it is a context within which multiple disciplines can be applied (e.g., organizational psychology).

### Other Gaps

Numerous other gaps exist such as that studies are lacking from outside of North America and Western Europe as well as studies of small and medium enterprises. Moreover, two gaps seem to especially stand out. First, studies on incumbent employees are not bridging practice and scholarship (cf. Aguinis, 2011). As mentioned previously, preconceived models are tested on employees, but there is little theory building (e.g., grounded theory). This trend in micro CSR is similar to the trend in the broader CSR literature that Waddock (2004) observed which is that academia and practice exist in parallel universes. In other words, scholars are not going out into the workplace to truly investigate why, how, and when employees experience CSR. Second, multilevel models are needed. This is an extremely important point, also brought up by Aguinis and Glavas (2012), because in the push for micro CSR, scholars should be weary that the micro-macro divide is not further increased.

### Mechanistic Approach

With the focus on trying to show that CSR has an impact on employees, it seems that the actual human being has been overlooked. By taking a look at **Figure 2**, the extant research seems very mechanistic, with arrows drawn from antecedents to outcomes. To be clear, I am not implying that organizational performance is not crucial for organizations, but rather that we need more studies on the actual human experience of CSR (e.g., how and why CSR affects employees).

As will be shown in the following section on future research, all the gaps mentioned in this section are opportunities for future research. As scholars in organizational psychology have put forward, our workplaces have become too mechanistic (Weiss and Rupp, 2011; Hulin, 2014) and CSR could be a major opportunity for organizational psychologists to study how to contribute to a more humanistic view of work (cf. Pirson and Lawrence, 2010).

### A (HUMANISTIC) CSR RESEARCH AGENDA

As shown in **Table 1**, the previously identified gaps lead to a rather straightforward research agenda for organizational psychology and CSR. Specifically, the gaps point to a need for future micro CSR research to (a) focus more on incumbent employees, (b) explore underlying mechanisms especially in more complex models such as with multiple mediators and moderators, (c) create theory that comes from the actual phenomena (e.g., grounded theory), and (d) include multiple disciplines with a focus on CSR that can also contribute back to the theory in those disciplines.

As seen in **Figure 2**, there are many approaches that can be taken to CSR—in other words, many areas of organizational psychology and management in general are connected to CSR. As Morgeson et al. (2010) stated, despite a century of research, we will still lack an understanding of how the broader organizational context impacts work. If the broader context is assumed to be society and the environment, then CSR is a perfect conduit to understanding how context impacts work (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013a). Therefore, not only can scholars from other disciplines help CSR, but CSR can also help scholars from other disciplines test out novel and interesting models within the context of CSR (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013b).

Moving beyond the more straightforward needs for future research evident from the Gaps section, in the following section I further integrate organizational psychology and CSR to propose a few additional research topics. In sum, the first part of this article dealt with what we know regarding the synergy between organizational psychology and CSR, the second part dealt with what we do not know, and this following section deals with some possibilities of what we could know.

### Whole and Ideal Self

As mentioned previously, we know from engagement theory (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010) that the more that employees bring of their whole selves to work, the more they will be engaged. Yet at the same time, it seems that our workplaces are designed so that we only bring part of our whole selves to work. As a result, less than 30% of employees are engaged at work (Gallup, 2013) and work is not one of the top eight reasons that makes people happy (Wallis, 2005). This is even more troubling from a well-being perspective because our lives are increasingly revolving around work (Rosso et al., 2010; Hulin, 2014).

Specifically, CSR could be a conduit for bringing more of the whole self to work (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010) through the psychological availability to show up whole, an alignment with the values of the organization, and/or being able to contribute to a higher purpose. As shown in **Figure 2** and also outlined in the review section on underlying mechanisms, CSR could enable all four of these factors. In summary, future research could explore if CSR is a conduit for people to show up whole at work. Perhaps this is why some employees might be attracted to CSR.

As a related topic, CSR is therefore a context within which employees can live out their ideal self, which is one's purpose, passion, and values (Goleman et al., 2001). In contrast, the ought self is what one feels that he/she is obligated to do based on societal conditioning and external pressure (Boyatzis and McKee, 2005). Often employees live out their ought selves at work for reasons such as being conditioned to believe that they should be in a certain profession and/or act in a specific manner at work (Boyatzis and McKee, 2005).

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 9

#### TABLE 1 | Future research opportunities and synergies for CSR and organizational psychology.


### Meaningfulness

Future research could also focus on theories and empirical studies of CSR and meaningfulness. Management systems are often designed to motivate employees based on pay and promotion, but overlook important needs such as meaningfulness (Wrzesniewski, 2003). One way that employees find meaning is by contributing to the common good or CSR (Rosso et al., 2010). However, we still know little about the actual process of why and how employees could find meaningfulness through CSR.

### Relational Job Design

As scholars (Glavas and Kelley, 2014; Aguinis and Glavas, in review) put forward, CSR could expand current job design theory to be also relational. Grant (2007) stated that our job design literature has mostly stagnated in the last couple of decades. Moreover, Grant (2008a) put forward that models of job design could be expanded so that significance is not only constrained to one's task but rather that one's job in general could be significant and meaningful. Grant (2008b) found support that employees are positively impacted when they engage in prosocial behaviors and especially when they see that they have improved the well-being of beneficiaries with whom they have contact (e.g., stakeholders). As a result, Grant (2007) called for a relational model of job design that is prosocial in nature, which then results in greater significance and meaning in one's job. Because CSR is prosocial in nature and is relational (i.e., caring for stakeholders), CSR offers an opportunity to expand the nature of job design to one that is relational.

By using CSR as a way to create a relational job design, it also opens up the door for creating cultures that are caring and compassionate (Aguinis and Glavas, in review). As the authors state, scholars recently (e.g., Rynes et al., 2012) have called for the study of caring and compassionate cultures in order to overcome the predominant focus of management on cultures that are rooted more in aggressiveness, competitiveness, and rigid norms. Because of the relational nature of CSR, future research could explore how creating caring relationships (i.e., caring for well-being of stakeholders) has an impact on employees. It is wellknown that many employees do not thrive in cut-throat cultures and that a glass ceiling effect keeps those with more nurturing values from being fully engaged in such cultures (Van Vianen and Fischer, 2002). Therefore, CSR could be a bridge with the diversity and other related literatures on how to create workforces that engage more of our employees.

### Creative Potential

For the sake of clarity, creativity and creative potential are two different constructs. Simply put, creativity is one's ability to approach problems and solutions and then come up with new ideas, while creative potential is how much an employee taps into that ability (Amabile, 1998). What is relevant for CSR is how much one is using their creative potential. Findings from past research suggest that influencing creativity can be quite difficult (Vernon, 1989). On the other hand creative potential can be influenced (Amabile, 1998).

Future research could focus on how CSR can be a driver for employees to use more of their creative potential. As findings from Glavas and Piderit (2009) suggest, CSR could be positively

related to creative potential, but we know less about why, how, or when. One possibility is that CSR is a topic that employees feel passionate about. As Amabile (1998) put forward, passion is one of the key drivers of creative potential. When employees care about an issue (e.g., CSR), they will spend their free moments thinking about potential innovation.

### Action Research

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 10

There is a parallel situation taking place in CSR practice from which scholars could learn. Corporations are learning that disruptive innovation will not come from making incremental shifts based on old decision-making models (Brown, 2009). The challenge is that when decisions are made based solely on past information (e.g., market, financial information) and then a gap analysis is conducted, corporations are then stuck in the same mental models, which then usually leads to incremental improvements. Rather, areas such as design thinking (Brown, 2008, 2009) are teaching corporations to work from the question of what is possible. In other words, the starting point is the future and not the past.

In academia, we analyze past information and often publish at least a few years after something has taken place—that is assuming the research was even conducted based on what is going on in practice. In addition, scholars often conduct a gap analysis of the literature in order to see where a contribution can be made. Thus, there is a risk of being stuck in a perpetual loop of building on old models based on old information.

CSR offers an opportunity to break out and ask what is possible. It is the questions that we ask that define our intent and our work. One such path to conduct research is action research (Reason and Bradbury, 2001). Instead of lagging behind practice, we as scholars could be putting forward models that we then test out in practice, refine, publish, test again, and so

### REFERENCES


Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harv. Bus. Rev. 76, 77–87.


forth. This would not only be useful for corporations, but also to researchers because access to samples would probably be easier if corporations found benefit in the work.

### CONCLUSION

Ironically, CSR is about caring for humans and the planet, yet in the quest to prove that CSR matters (i.e., mechanistic focus on antecedents and outcomes), we have forgotten the actual human being. As Weiss and Rupp (2011) put forward, organizational psychologists have been so focused on what leads to performance that they have also ignored the actual human being (Aguinis and Glavas, in review). Moreover, Weiss and Rupp (2011, pp. 94–95) make an analogy to a television show: "Ice Road Truckers is about people driving their trucks. I–O psychology seems mostly to be about whether their legs are long enough to reach the pedals." The focus has been so much on what is good for the organization, that we have overlooked the actual driver, the engine, and the fuel.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I kindly thank the editor and reviewers for their extremely constructive feedback. In addition, I would also like to thank Herman Aguinis, David Jones, and Chelsea Willness for their invaluable input.


Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86, 84–92.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.


fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 11


ting-survey-2013-v2.pdf [accessed July 6, 2015].

fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 12


fpsyg-07-00144 February 15, 2016 Time: 18:43 # 13


**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Glavas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Perception-Induced Effects of Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSiR) for Stereotypical and Admired Firms

#### Seraphim Voliotis, Pavlos A. Vlachos \* and Olga Epitropaki

ALBA Graduate Business School at the American College of Greece, Athens, Greece

How do stakeholders react to Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSiR)? What are the emotional mechanisms and behavioral outcomes following CSiR perception? The psychology of CSR literature has yet to address these important questions and has largely considered CSR and CSiR as the opposite poles of the same continuum. In contrast, we view CSR and CSiR as distinct constructs and theorize about the cognitive (perceptual), emotional, and behavioral effects of CSiR activity on observers (i.e., primary and secondary stakeholders) building on theories of intergroup perception. Specifically, building on the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002) and the BIAS map (i.e., Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes; Cuddy et al., 2007)—which extends the SCM by predicting behavioral responses—we make predictions on potential stakeholder reactions to CSiR focusing on two practice-relevant cases: (a) a typical for-profit firm that engages in a CSiR activity, (b) an atypical admired firm that engages in CSiR activity.

#### Edited by:

Ante Glavas, Kedge Business School, France

#### Reviewed by:

Kenneth De Roeck, IÉSEG School of Management, France Daniel Korschun, Drexel University, USA

> \*Correspondence: Pavlos A. Vlachos pvlachos@alba.edu.gr

#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 08 March 2016 Accepted: 10 June 2016 Published: 24 June 2016

#### Citation:

Voliotis S, Vlachos PA and Epitropaki O (2016) Perception-Induced Effects of Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSiR) for Stereotypical and Admired Firms. Front. Psychol. 7:970. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00970 Keywords: Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSiR), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), stereotype content model, stakeholders, psychology of CS(i)R

### INTRODUCTION

While Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has received considerable attention (e.g., Sen et al., 2016), the business world has been tarnished with numerous scandals and other irresponsible behaviors, such as environmental pollution or abuses of human rights. These phenomena, conceptualized collectively as Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSiR), have received comparatively little scholarly attention. Moreover, despite the fact that "individuals act based on perceptions, not objective reality" (Wry, 2009, p. 156), only the emerging microfoundations perspective in CSR (Rupp and Mallory, 2015) and isolated efforts in the CSiR literature (e.g., Lange and Washburn, 2012) take a micro-level view of the effects of CSR and CSiR on the observer of the firm.

Building on recent calls for more research on the micro-level mediating mechanisms that translate stakeholders' CSiR perceptions into outcomes (e.g., Glavas, 2016), we theorize about the cognitive (perceptual), emotional, and behavioral effects of CSiR activity on observers. Thus, we extend the psychology of corporate responsibility literature, which has largely focused on CSR. In particular, we examine the perceptual, emotional, and behavioral effects of CSiR on stakeholders<sup>1</sup> , undertaken by two types of firms: (a) stereotypical for-profit firms that are generally perceived as economically competent but purely self-interested or (b) by admired firms, such as VW, that are perceived as both economically competent and socially responsible (communal). Motivated by the VW software rigging scandal, we consider how such firms may be affected by CSiR activity.

### THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: FIRMS AND THE SCM

Our theoretical model examines the effects of stakeholders' perceptions of firms' CSiR activities on their emotions and behaviors toward the firm. Since firms are social evaluation objects (Kervyn et al., 2012), we build our propositions on the psychological study of social relations and, particularly, on the validated, primal, and universal Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Cuddy et al., 2008). The SCM suggests that the perceptual aspect of stereotypes is based on two dimensions, namely Communality<sup>2</sup> and Competence (or being agentic; Bakan, 1966). Communality is understood as the alignment of the intentions of the perceived to the interests of the perceiver and competence as the ability to bring about desired events (Cuddy et al., 2008). The stereotype content is reduced to a positioning in four clusters within the two dimensional perceptual space of communality and competence: high in both (HCHA)<sup>3</sup> , low in both (LCLA), high communality low competence (HCLA), and low communality high competence (LCHA). Empirical evidence, moreover, positions the stereotyped predominately in the latter two ambivalent clusters. For instance, men (Glick and Fiske, 1999), Jews (Glick, 2002), or professional women (Glick and Fiske, 1996) are primarily perceived as LCHA, while the elderly (Cuddy and Fiske, 2004) or traditional women (Eagly and Mladinic, 1989) are perceived largely are HCLA.

The SCM further posits that perceivers are likely to experience emotions that correspond to each of the four clusters. Specifically, prior research has suggested that liking and respecting are the affective signatures of communality and competence, respectively (Fiske et al., 1999) and differ in their antecedents: "...liking–disliking is a response reflecting personal interests and preferences, such as fondness (loathing), attachment (dissociation), enjoyment (aversion) [...] Respect–disrespect is a response which reflects high regard of and deference to a person" (Wojciszke et al., 2009, p. 39). These affective responses originate from the structural relations between individuals or groups (Glick and Fiske, 2001), as operationalized by their interdependence (competitive vs. cooperative) and by the relative status of the group (Fiske et al., 2002), respectively. For example, individuals respect members of the high-status group but dislike them in competition (Wojciszke et al., 2009), while they disrespect low status-groups but like them in cooperation (Fiske et al., 1999). To summarize, HCHA perceptions generate liking and respecting, LCHA respecting and disliking, HCLA liking and disrespecting, and LCLA disliking and disrespecting<sup>4</sup> .

The SCM is concerned with perceptions of people. However, it has recently been applied to perceptions of firms and brands by stakeholders such as consumers (Aaker et al., 2010, 2012; Kervyn et al., 2012). Although a for-profit firm can, in principle, occupy any cluster, there is evidence that such firms are stereotyped as low in communality and high in competence. By manipulating the ".com" and "org." heuristics and measuring university and national samples' willingness to buy, Aaker et al. (2010) found such stereotyping, which is not surprising since stereotypes are heuristic categorizations (Fiske and Neuberg, 1990) and the for-profit prefix supports a heuristic characterization of low communality. Indeed, although the for-profit company contributes to society by providing employment or meeting consumer needs, societal contribution is not its primary concern (Devinney, 2009). Moreover, the power-ridden, competitive corporate context is likely to elicit perceptions of competence.

Based on the SCM and its extension, the BIAS Map (Cuddy et al., 2007), in what follows we propose the perception-induced behavioral impact of a firm's CSiR on the generic perceiver. We shall first consider the stereotypical LCHA firms and then firms that occupy the HCHA "golden quadrant" (Aaker et al., 2012). We focus on these two clusters because of the aforementioned stereotype and because brand research indicates high scores in the competence scale for all the brands studied (Kervyn et al., 2012 Figure 3)<sup>5</sup> .

### EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF CSIR: THE CASE OF THE TYPICAL FOR-PROFIT FIRM

CSiR relates to perceptions of moral transgression and thirdparty injustice (Lange and Washburn, 2012), both of which powerfully evoke anger. Consequently, CSiR is naturally related to anger, an emotion that expresses moral outrage (Cuddy et al., 2008). Indeed, Grappi et al. (2013) find that companies' ethical and social transgressions engender anger (also, Antonetti and Maklan, 2016) 6 . Although anger does not appear in the SCM, per se, one particularly interesting feature of the LCHA cluster is that anger has been found to play a critical role for the

<sup>1</sup>We develop our propositions without a particular class of stakeholders in mind. Future work could refine our model by examining differentiating nuances between specific observer classes (e.g., employees vs. customers).

<sup>2</sup>The term warmth has been originally used in the SCM nomenclature, but for reasons of terminological clarity we use the term communal instead (see Abele and Wojciszke, 2007). Indeed, Kervyn et al. (2012, p. 206) note that "...warmth as a trait by itself is easily confused with the perceiver's feelings of warmth."

<sup>3</sup>We use "A" to denote the second dimension in the acronym, which stands for agentic, since "C" would create obvious ambiguity.

<sup>4</sup>The SCM, in its most sophisticated form, associates the four clusters with the "signature emotions" of admiration, envy, pity, and contempt, respectively (Cuddy et al., 2008). However, we adopt a more rudimentary approach because our focal objects of perception are firms which cannot invoke complex emotions, such as envy, to individuals.

<sup>5</sup>We believe that a large number of not-for-profit organizations, such as governmental organizations, NGOs, and social enterprises would occupy the remaining clusters. We view this as an important and natural extension to our present work.

<sup>6</sup>CSiR may also impact on perceptions of the firm by intensifying the lack of communality. However, since the effect will not change the cluster in which the firm is positioned and since our predictions are cluster-based we ignore such effects here.

observers' behavioral reactions toward the stereotyped. Such stereotype-induced behaviors are predicted by the BIAS map (Cuddy et al., 2007), which has extended the SCM in this respect.

According to the BIAS map, behaviors are represented in two dimensions, intensity and valence. Intensity is characterized as either intense or mild and valence as facilitative or harmful. The BIAS Map predicts, inter alia, that perceptions induce specific combinations of dual behaviors, as mediated by affective responses (i.e., liking and respect). In particular, LCHA perceptions should induce mild facilitation or intense harm, HCHA perceptions will induce mild or intense facilitation, HCLA perceptions will induce intense facilitation or active harm, and LCLA perceptions will induce mild or intense harm. For firms, mild facilitation could amount to simply purchasing the company's products, while discrediting or suing the company could amount to intense harm.

A stereotypical for-profit company, which is perceived as LCHA, is disliked but respected and should, accordingly, expect to be either mildly facilitated or intensely harmed. However, the theoretically predicted intensely harmful behaviors were only found to occur in the presence of an additional emotion, anger, which fully mediates the causal link between perception, primary emotion (respect and dislike), and behavior (Cuddy et al., 2007). Thus, we posit (see **Figure 1**):

Proposition 1: CSiR activity, when committed by a firm perceived as LCHA, such as a stereotypical for-profit firm, is likely to generate anger which, in turn, is likely to generate intensively harmful behaviors.

Given the pivotal role of anger in the generation of intensely harmful behaviors, in order to understand the behavioral impact of a CSiR activity by a typical for-profit firm we need to consider the conditions under which CSiR may generate anger. Developing a complete account of such conditions is outside the scope of this article. However, Lange and Washburn (2012) propose, inter alia, that the culpability of the corporation generates attributions of CSiR. We focus here on culpability since it is affected by causal attributions and attribution theory is an important but relatively neglected theoretical mechanism in the micro-CSR literature (Glavas, 2016). In particular, we highlight controllability of the causes underlying the CSiR activity, defined as observers' perception that an actor (i.e., the LCHA firm) can affect the causes underlying the activity. Indeed, anger is posited as an attribution of blame (Averill, 1983) and attribution theory predicts that controllability is strongly linked to anger (Weiner, 1985).

Specifically, in the presence of low controllability attributions we expect the effect of CSiR activity on anger to be weakened but, nevertheless, retained. This is because an LCHA firm's intentions are stereotypically perceived as not aligned with observers' interests (Kervyn et al., 2012) and CSiR only serves to confirm these perceptions, which raises doubt concerning the firm's apparent lack of control. On the other hand, when attributions of controllability are relatively higher the effect is straightforward: negative reactions are expected, as the literature on individuals' reactions to acts of injustice predicts (e.g., Miller, 2001). For example, SIEMENS settled a large number of cases of bribery for an estimated e1.3 billion (Patterson, 2009), but could be a "victim" of extortion or competitive pressure within a corrupt institutional field or a "victimizer" who set the corrupt rules (Galang, 2012). We expect the emotional and behavioral reactions of stakeholders to vary substantially depending on the extent of controllability they assign to the firm.

We also expect stakeholders to perceive the firm as more culpable whenever it is perceived as predisposed to irresponsible behavior, that is, "to have a tendency to act in [an irresponsible] way over time" (Lange and Washburn, 2012, p. 306). Thus:

Proposition 2: Feelings of anger, toward for-profit organizations stereotypically perceived as LCHA that engage in CSiR, are likely to be increased the more the corporation is deemed culpable. Culpability is more likely to be ascribed when the firm is predisposed to irresponsible behavior or when the firm's controllability of the causes is perceived as high, and it is less likely if controllability is perceived as low.

### COGNITIVE, EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF CSiR: THE CASE OF THE ADMIRED FIRM

The second situation of interest concerns admired companies (Kervyn et al., 2012) that occupy the HCHA "golden quadrant" (Aaker et al., 2012), despite the LCHA stereotype. The SCM and the BIAS map, as applied herewith, predict that such companies are expected to be respected and liked and to be either mildly or intensely facilitated (see **Figure 2**). How will perceivers be affected cognitively (perceptually), emotionally, and behaviorally if such firms engage in CSiR?

There are two main possibilities: (a) the firm remains in the same perceptual quadrant (albeit with its reputation dented) or (b) the CSiR activity is potent enough to displace it within the perceptual space to the stereotypical LCHA quadrant. We shall consider both possibilities.

First, since, by supposition, the firm occupies the HCHA quadrant, it is expected to act communally. CSiR is, therefore, not only negative but also unexpected; conditions that increase the salience of the activity. Even if the firm remains in the HCHA cluster, the CSiR activity is likely to dent the liking that it enjoys and, ultimately, the behavioral impact. In particular, since the communality dimension has become salient, behavioral intensity becomes more prominent (Cuddy et al., 2007) and, according to the BIAS map, due to the negativity of the firm's irresponsibility, the facilitative behavioral response is more likely to be mild rather intense. This effect resembles the "insurance-like property" of CSR noted by Godfrey et al. (2009) who found that firms engaging in CSR lost on average (one-third) less capitalization than their counterparts not engaging in CSR. Investing in CSR generates goodwill and moral capital which, in the presence of a negative event, "...should reduce the overall severity of sanctions by encouraging stakeholders to give the firm "the benefit of the doubt"" (Godfrey et al., 2009, p. 428).

If, on the other hand, the firm returns to stereotypically low communality ratings, then the behavioral responses are expected to be quite adverse, as predicted earlier.

Proposition 3: CSiR activity, when committed by a firm that is perceived as HCHA may either (a) fail to displace the firm from the HCHA quadrant, in which case the firm is likely to experience mild facilitation, mediated by decreased liking and respect, or (b) displace the firm to the stereotypical LCHA quadrant, in which case the firm is likely to experience intensively harmful observer behaviors, mediated by respect, dislike, and anger.

It is, thus, important to identify conditions that trigger perceptual displacement from HCHA to LCHA. There are several conditions that could drive such displacement and, although, it is outside the scope of this article to theorize about them in detail, we briefly discuss three prominent conditions.

The first condition is the intensity of the for-profit stereotype within the industry: if perceivers firmly believe in it they may assume that the admired company simply reverted to the stereotypically expected behavior of for-profits. For instance, such intensity could depend on geographical locality. Indeed, according to a recent European Commission (2013) non-Europeans are more positive about the overall influence of companies on society. Therefore, it seems that in the EU (vs., for instance, Brazil) the LCHA stereotype is more entrenched, which could result in construing the CSiR activity of an admired company as a manifestation of its non-communal nature.

The second condition concerns the alignment of the act with the underlying dimension of the firm's communality rating. For instance, if a firm, such as VW (Hotten, 2015), is an environmental champion in its industry an environmental infraction, such as VW's software rigging scandal, is likely to affect it more than a taxation impropriety. That is because observers will be more likely to characterize a company as hypocritical when there are domain-specific inconsistencies simply because comparisons are more fluent. Congruity theory (Osgood and Tannenbaum, 1955) predicts that individuals appreciate consistency between what they know and new information. If there is inconsistency—which is easier to diagnose in the case of domain specific communality and irresponsibility, respectively—individuals will try to restore balance by changing attitudes, which in our context may mean displacing the firm to the LCHA quadrant. Our prediction also has implications for the literature that examines the effects of perceptual CSR fit on observer outcomes (e.g., Simmons and Becker-Olsen, 2006), which relates to the extent to which the cause has connections to the firm's core business. Thus, while CSR fit is reported to have positive effects (Simmons and Becker-Olsen, 2006), once a firm engages in CSiR, CSR fit may backfire.

Finally, the third condition relates to the nature of the causal attribution. In particular, if observers perceive the CSiR as a signal of the firm's core then they will attribute it to the firm's disposition which is likely to cause displacement toward the LCHA quadrant in the perceptual space. Specifically, as in proposition 2, if observers view the act as something that is relatively not controlled by the company, such as unrealistically harsh environmental legislation or industry-wide institutional pressures, then the act will not be attributed to the firms' core and perceptual displacement may be avoided. Conversely, if the CSiR is perceived as relatively controllable, it may be attributed to the firm's core and displacement might not be avoided.

Proposition 4: For-profit organizations perceived as HCHA that engage in CSiR are more likely to be displaced toward the LCHA quadrant if the LCHA stereotype is more entrenched within the industry, if there is congruence between the irresponsible behavior and the firm's communality rating, and if the causes of the irresponsible behavior are attributed to controllable factors.

### CONCLUSION

The psychology of CSR literature has primarily focused on companies doing good, largely assuming that CSR and CSiR are the two polar opposites of the same construct. We argue that these are distinct constructs that require separate theoretical examination (for example, the same company might engage in both CSR and CSiR; Kang et al., 2016). That said, we now have some knowledge of how stakeholders react to CSR (Glavas, 2016), yet we know less about stakeholders' reactions to CSiR. Specifically, what are the emotional and behavioral outcomes of CSiR perceptions for stereotypical firms (LCHA) and for admired firms (HCHA)? We give some initial answers to these questions and contribute to the psychology of CSiR by providing a general socio-cognitive model of outcomes—a mediating mechanism between the CSiR activity and its effects—that relies on a validated and parsimonious yet universal model of social perception. Clearly, there is more to follow, for instance: (a) additional moderating factors may be considered, (b) since our model is perceptual, looking at particular classes of observers may yield differential outcomes, and (c) will it be useful for a company to rectify its reputational damage by engaging in CSR following the exposure of its irresponsible behavior?

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

SV substantially contributed the conception and design of the work and to the drafting of the paper. PV made substantial contributions to the drafting of the paper and contextualization of the work in the context of CSR. OE made substantial contributions to the drafting of the paper and its potential for operationalization.

### REFERENCES


**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Voliotis, Vlachos and Epitropaki. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Stakeholders' Responses to CSR Tradeoffs: When Other-Orientation and Trust Trump Material Self-Interest

#### Flore Bridoux <sup>1</sup> \*, Nicole Stofberg<sup>2</sup> and Deanne Den Hartog<sup>3</sup>

*1 International Strategy and Marketing, Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands, <sup>2</sup> Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands, <sup>3</sup> HRM & Organizational Behaviour, International Strategy and Marketing, Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands*

#### Edited by:

*David Allen Jones, University of Vermont, USA*

#### Reviewed by:

*Pavlos A. Vlachos, ALBA Graduate Business School at the American College of Greece, Greece Ante Glavas, Kedge Business School, France Chelsea R. Willness, University of Saskatchewan, Canada*

> \*Correspondence: *Flore Bridoux f.m.bridoux@uva.nl*

#### Specialty section:

*This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology*

Received: *24 September 2015* Accepted: *14 December 2015* Published: *14 January 2016*

#### Citation:

*Bridoux F, Stofberg N and Den Hartog D (2016) Stakeholders' Responses to CSR Tradeoffs: When Other-Orientation and Trust Trump Material Self-Interest. Front. Psychol. 6:1992. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01992* When investing in corporate social responsibility (CSR), managers may strive for a win-win scenario where all stakeholders end up better off, but they may not always be able to avoid trading off stakeholders' interests. To provide guidance to managers who have to make tradeoffs, this study used a vignette-based experiment to explore stakeholders' intention to associate with a firm (i.e., buy from or become an employee) that trades off CSR directed at the stakeholders' own group (self-directed CSR) and CSR directed at another stakeholder group (other-directed CSR). Results show that stakeholders were not systematically more attracted to a firm that favors their own group over another stakeholder group. Specifically, stakeholders' other-orientation moderated their reaction to tradeoffs: stakeholders higher on other-orientation were willing to forego some material benefits to associate with a firm that treated suppliers in developing countries significantly better than its competitors, whereas stakeholders lower on other-orientation were more attracted to a firm favoring their own stakeholder group. Other-orientation also moderated reactions to tradeoffs involving the environment, although high CSR directed at the environment did not compensate for low self-directed CSR even for stakeholders higher on other-orientation. Second, the vignette study showed that trust mediated the relationship between tradeoffs and stakeholders' reactions. The study contributes first and foremost to the burgeoning literature on CSR tradeoffs and to the multimotive approach to CSR, which claims that other motives can drive stakeholders' reactions to CSR in addition to self-interest. First, it provides further evidence that studying CSR tradeoffs is important to understand both (prospective) employees' and customers' reactions to CSR-related activities. Second, it identifies other-orientation as a motive-related individual difference that explains heterogeneity in stakeholders' reactions to CSR. These findings suggest several avenues for future research for organizational psychologists interested in organizational justice. Third, it investigates trust as a mediating mechanism. Fourth, it reveals differences in stakeholders' reactions depending on which other stakeholder group is involved in the tradeoff. For practice, the findings suggest that tradeoffs are important because they influence which stakeholders are attracted to the firm.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, stakeholder theory, tradeoffs, micro-CSR, other-orientation, prospective employees, consumers, microfoundations

## INTRODUCTION

Engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a way to attract stakeholders and strengthen existing stakeholder-firm relationships (Turban and Greening, 1996; Sen et al., 2006; Barnett, 2007). Yet, in developing responsible strategies and operating practices to manage relationships with and impacts on stakeholders and the natural environment (Waddock, 2004, pp. 9–10), even a firm that strives to find new and innovative ways to do good for all stakeholders "often has to choose one [stakeholder] at the expense of another" (Rupp et al., 2006, p. 541) in the shorter term. For example, heavy investing in fair trade practices to improve the welfare of suppliers in developing countries can hurt customers' material well-being, as customers may have to pay higher prices for the firm's products or the firm cannot invest as much in product innovation (White et al., 2012). Whereas scholars have long recognized that managers often have to trade off stakeholders' interests (e.g., Phillips, 2003; Reynolds et al., 2006), research does not provide guidance on how to manage tradeoffs (Laplume et al., 2008). In fact, very little is known about how stakeholders react to the tradeoffs firms make (Vlachos et al., 2014).

To address this gap, this paper aims to shed light on primary stakeholders' intention to associate with a firm (e.g., the intention to join the firm for prospective employees and to buy from the firm for customers) when the firm invests more or less in CSR toward the stakeholders' own group ("self-directed" CSR) than it invests in CSR toward another stakeholder group ("otherdirected" CSR). Primary stakeholders, like employees, customers, suppliers, and investors, supply resources important to firm performance and associate voluntarily with the firm (Post et al., 2002, p. 19), which implies that attracting these stakeholders is critical to firm performance (Clarkson, 1995).

To examine primary stakeholders' reactions to tradeoffs between self- and other-directed CSR, we build on Rupp and colleagues' multimotive framework that aims to explain stakeholders' reactions to other-directed CSR (Rupp et al., 2006, 2011, 2013; Aguilera et al., 2007; Rupp, 2011). Rupp and colleagues proposed conceptualizing other-directed CSR as a special form of third-party justice and have used the organizational justice literature to develop theory (Rupp et al., 2006, 2013; Rupp, 2011) and empirically test (Rupp et al., 2013) whether uncertainty reduction, relational, and moral motives drive stakeholders' reactions to other-directed CSR. Building on this framework we propose that other-orientation moderates stakeholders' intention to associate with a firm that trades off self- and other-directed CSR because individuals higher on this personality trait are likely to be driven by relational and moral motives in addition to material self-interest, which is often the only motive considered by the management literature adopting the logic of economics (e.g., agency theory; Bosse and Phillips, Forthcoming).

In addition, we test trust as a mechanism mediating the relationship between tradeoffs and firm's attractiveness to stakeholders. We propose that stakeholders' trust in the firm is a manifestation of stakeholders' expectations that the firm can fulfill the material, relational, and moral needs identified by Rupp and colleagues. Finally, we test whether otherorientation moderates the mediating effect of trust. We expect this moderating effect because, compared to individuals lower on other-orientation who are focused on material well-being, the relational and moral needs of stakeholders higher on other-orientation make them more vulnerable to managers' unfair behavior toward stakeholders. We use a vignette-based experiment to test our hypotheses.

Our work contributes to the micro-CSR, management, and organizational justice literatures (e.g., Aguilera et al., 2007; Glavas and Piderit, 2009; Jones, 2010; Jones et al., 2014) in several ways. First, it provides further empirical support for the recent claim that studying CSR tradeoffs is important (e.g., Vlachos et al., 2009, 2014; Auger et al., 2013; Rupp et al., 2013). Second, and more importantly, by proposing other-orientation as a source of heterogeneity in stakeholders' responses to tradeoffs, our work, on the one hand, provides additional evidence that the management literature should not focus exclusively on material self-interest to explain human behavior and, on the other hand, identifies a boundary condition moderating stakeholders' reactions to CSR. For the organizational justice literature, these findings add to the body of evidence supporting the use of the relational model (Tyler and Lind, 1992) and deontic model of organizational justice (Folger, 2001; Folger et al., 2005) in addition to the instrumental model (Thibaut and Walker, 1975). In addition, they suggests that the relational and deontic models of justice may be more useful to understand the reactions to organizational justice of some individuals than of others. Third, by studying the mediating effect of trust we add to knowledge about the mechanisms through which CSR can affect stakeholders' attitude and behavior toward the firm (e.g., Farooq et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2014). Fourth, by considering CSR directed at the environment and CSR directed at suppliers in developing countries separately, our study reveals differences in stakeholders' reactions to tradeoffs according to which other stakeholder group is involved, suggesting that to explain stakeholders' reactions to other-directed CSR we need a finer-grained understanding of which other stakeholder groups matter to primary stakeholders of organizations. Our work suggests several avenues for future research for organizational psychologists interested in organizational justice.

## THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

### A Multimotive Framework to Explain Stakeholders' Reactions to Tradeoffs

It is well-established in the literature that stakeholders react to the firm's (ir)responsible practices toward other stakeholder groups as well as toward their own group (Rupp et al., 2006, 2013). For example, CSR directed at external stakeholders as well as employees influence employees' organizational commitment and prospective employees' job pursuit intention (Turban and Greening, 1996; Rupp et al., 2013; Glavas and Kelley, 2014; Rayton et al., 2015). The literature also shows that firms often have to trade off different stakeholders' interests (Phillips, 2003; Reynolds et al., 2006; Rupp et al., 2006). Yet, how these stakeholders react to tradeoffs between self- and otherdirected CSR is unclear. The few empirical studies contrasting self- and other-directed CSR show mixed results (Peloza and Shang, 2011). Auger et al. (2003, 2008) found consumers to be unwilling to sacrifice minimum product quality standards in favor of socially responsible investments targeted at employees or the environment. In contrast, in Folkes and Kamins' (1999) and Handelman and Arnold's (1999) studies, high investments targeted at consumers could not fully compensate for low CSR investments directed at other stakeholder groups.

These mixed results suggest that the value stakeholders derive from other-directed CSR may not be entirely related to personal material benefits. Therefore, we build on Rupp and colleagues' multimotive CSR framework (Rupp et al., 2006, 2011, 2013; Aguilera et al., 2007; Rupp, 2011) to better understand the motives and mechanisms driving stakeholders' responses to tradeoffs between self- and other-directed CSR. Rupp and colleagues propose conceptualizing other-directed CSR as thirdparty justice and argue that three motives drive (prospective) employees' reactions to other-directed CSR: an uncertainty reduction motive, a relational motive, and a moral motive. First, (prospective) employees may value other-directed CSR because it provides a heuristic to forecast how the firm will treat its employees in the future and, thus, offers a sense of control over their own material outcomes (e.g., Rupp et al., 2006, 2013; Aguilera et al., 2007; Farooq et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2014). Second, (prospective) employees may value other-directed CSR because it fulfills their need for relating to others inside and outside the firm (e.g., Rupp et al., 2006; Aguilera et al., 2007) and for a favorable social identity through the prestige that other-directed CSR may bestow on the organization (e.g., Rupp, 2011; Rupp et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2014). Third, beyond the self-serving benefits (material and relational) that otherdirected CSR yields for them, (prospective) employees may value other-directed CSR because treating third parties fairly is the right thing to do from a moral standpoint (e.g., Rupp et al., 2006, 2013; Aguilera et al., 2007). We build on and extend this multimotive framework by investigating the moderating role of individuals' other-orientation and the mediating role of trust in the relationship between tradeoffs and a firm's attractiveness to stakeholders.

### Tradeoffs and Stakeholders' Other-Orientation

A large body of evidence shows that individuals differ in the degree to which they care about others' welfare, which we call "other-orientation," and that these differences affect how individuals behave when others are involved (Bridoux et al., 2011). When making choices that impact their own and others' welfare, individuals differ in the weight they assigned to (1) the outcomes for one's self, (2) the outcomes for others, and (3) the fairness of the outcome distribution (e.g., Van Lange, 1999; De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001; Stouten et al., 2005). Differences along these dimensions lead to different "social value orientations" (Messick and McClintock, 1968; Nauta et al., 2002). Different social value orientations exist, but the majority of people can be classified as either "individualists" (20–40%) or "prosocials" (40–60%; Bogaert et al., 2008). Individualists are selforiented in the sense that they are inclined to maximize personal outcomes, whereas prosocials are other-oriented: they care for others' outcomes and fairness as well as for their own outcomes (De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001).

Social value orientations help explain why individuals behave differently when others are involved. In particular, individuals high on other-orientation are more willing to cooperate than individuals low on other-orientation (De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001). For example, employees high on other-orientation show more organizational citizenship behavior (Rioux and Penner, 2001). While individuals high on other-orientation are generally more inclined to cooperate, their behavior is also driven by reciprocity: they aim to increase (decrease) the outcome for the other party when they perceive this other party as behaving (un)fairly (Liebrand et al., 1986; Van Lange, 1999; De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001; Fehr and Fischbacher, 2002a). In other words, individuals high on other-orientation assign more weight to other's outcomes than individuals low on other-orientation do, but this weight is not always positive. This depends on the fairness of the other's behavior, underlying intention, and the procedure to allocate the outcome (Turillo et al., 2002). In contrast, individuals low on other-orientation only adopt contingent behaviors if they expect higher present or future personal outcomes that offset the cost of behaving in contingent ways (Trivers, 1971).

We expect other-orientation to be a source of heterogeneity in stakeholders' reactions to tradeoffs between self- and otherdirected CSR. Specifically, the relational and moral motives driving positive reactions to other-directed CSR in Rupp and colleagues' framework (Rupp et al., 2006, 2011, 2013; Aguilera et al., 2007; Rupp, 2011) fit the needs and preferences of individuals high on other-orientation more than those of individuals low on this personality trait. All stakeholders, regardless of their degree of other-orientation, may value otherdirected CSR because it reduces uncertainty regarding their own future material outcomes (Rupp et al., 2006, 2013; Aguilera et al., 2007; Farooq et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2014), but for stakeholders high on other-orientation, other-directed CSR is also valuable because they care about relating with others and fairness for its own sake.

First, compared to individuals low on other-orientation, individuals high on other-orientation value the opportunity to give and receive "kindness" and resources more and they have a preference for working with others if others reciprocate (Van Lange, 1999; De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001). As a result, otherdirected CSR is more likely to positively affect self-esteem and social identity for individuals high on other-orientation than for those low on other-orientation (Rupp et al., 2013).

Second, individuals high on other-orientation value fairness more than individuals low on other-orientation. Individuals high on other-orientation assess behaviors on a "moral" dimension (what is good or bad), while individuals low on other-orientation tend to assess behaviors along an "effectiveness" dimension (what works) (Liebrand et al., 1986; De Dreu and Boles, 1998). This difference is reflected in their emotional reactions to situations in which others behave unfairly. In Stouten et al.'s (2005) experiment, whereas individuals low on other-orientation were no longer upset when informed that others' unfair behavior would not affect their own payoffs, individuals high on otherorientation stayed upset because their anger came from to the violation of the norm of fairness itself. As a result of valuing fairness for its own sake, individuals high on other-orientation are inclined to reward fairness and punish unfairness even when it decreases their material outcomes, for example they invest resources to punish strangers with whom they will not interact again (Fehr and Gächter, 2002b) and to punish those who behave unfairly toward a third party (Fehr and Gächter, 2002b; Engelmann and Strobel, 2004; Fehr and Fischbacher, 2004). In line with this, there is already some evidence that stakeholders' other-orientation may play a role in their decision to associate with firms investing in other-directed CSR, including prospective employees' decision to join (Evans and Davis, 2011) and customers' purchase intention (Schuler and Cording, 2006; Doran, 2009).

Based on the above arguments, we expect other-orientation to influence how much individuals value the personal material benefits involved in self-directed CSR compared to the relational benefits and the benefits to others provided by other-directed CSR. Specifically, we expect stakeholders low on otherorientation to prefer a tradeoff in favor of their own stakeholder group. By comparison, we expect stakeholders high on otherorientation to have a less marked preference between a tradeoff in the favor of their own stakeholder group or of another group because they also value other-directed CSR for relational and moral reasons. This leads us to propose the following moderating effect:

Hypothesis 1: Stakeholders' other-orientation moderates the relationship between a firm's tradeoff and stakeholders' intention to associate with the firm: the higher the otherorientation, the smaller the difference in intention to associate between a tradeoff in favor of stakeholders' own group and a tradeoff in a favor of another group.

## Tradeoffs, Trust, and Stakeholders' Other-Orientation

Stakeholders' trust in the firm is a prime candidate among the mechanisms through which CSR could affect stakeholders' behavior toward to the firm (Hansen et al., 2011; Farooq et al., 2014). Trust is 'the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party' (Mayer et al., 1995, p.712). Highly trusted firms have been argued to command positive stakeholder attitudes and behaviors such as increased employees' commitment and organizational identification, job pursuit intention, satisfaction, repeat purchases, reduced turnover intention, etc. (Greening and Turban, 2000; Vlachos et al., 2009; Hansen et al., 2011; De Roeck and Delobbe, 2012; Farooq et al., 2014). Some authors have even gone as far as to argue that the creation of trust among stakeholders is the 'first result of a firm's CSR activities' (Pivato et al., 2008, p. 3).

We expect trust to mediate the relationship between tradeoffs and firm's attractiveness to stakeholders because trust is a manifestation of stakeholders' expectations that the firm can fulfill the material, relational, and moral needs linked to the three motives identified by Rupp and colleagues. A highly trusted firm is one for which the current stakeholder-related activities raise the expectation that managers will care for the future material well-being of stakeholders (Rupp, 2011; Farooq et al., 2014), will care to maintain high-quality relationships with stakeholders (Rupp et al., 2006), and will favor ethically justifiable behavior (Vlachos et al., 2009). Stakeholders' trust in the firm has indeed be linked to their perceptions of the firm's benevolence (i.e., concern, caring, loyalty) and integrity (i.e., values, principles, fairness) in addition to its ability (i.e., competence, skills, efficiency; e.g., Mayer et al., 1995; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Colquitt and Rodell, 2011). Conversely, low trust in the firm indicates that the firm's stakeholder-related activities do not fulfill stakeholders' need for control over future material outcomes, for good relationships with other stakeholders and managers, and for morality.

Stakeholder-related activities directed at both stakeholders' own and other groups form the basis of stakeholders' overall impressions of trust (Rupp et al., 2006; Gillespie and Dietz, 2009; Rupp, 2011). That the firm's treatment of their own group influences stakeholders' level of trust in the firm has long been established in the justice literature (see, e.g., Cohen-Charash and Spector's (2001) meta-analysis for employees). Recent work suggests that, beyond this, the treatment of other stakeholders, such as customers, also affects employees' trust in the firm (e.g., Weibel et al., 2015). And, empirical evidence exists for a mediating effect of trust in the relationship between otherdirected CSR and stakeholders' responses (Vlachos et al., 2009; Hansen et al., 2011; De Roeck and Delobbe, 2012; Farooq et al., 2014). The above arguments lead us to hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: Trust mediates the relationship between a firm's tradeoffs and stakeholders' intention to associate with the firm.

We further expect that the mediating influence of trust is moderated by stakeholders' other-orientation because the relational and moral needs driving the more positive reactions to other-directed CSR in stakeholders high on other-orientation also make these stakeholders more vulnerable to managers behaving unfairly toward themselves and other stakeholders. Because they seek to fulfill relational needs in their relationships with the firm and its managers (Bridoux and Stoelhorst, accepted), individuals high on other-orientation are inclined to cooperate beyond the call of duty, expecting their relational partners to reciprocate, but this "natural inclination to cooperate makes them vulnerable for being exploited by non-cooperative alters" (Boone et al., 2010,p. 800). Aware of this danger, individuals high on other-orientation are much less likely to cooperate if they suspect the other party may be uncooperative (Van Lange and Semin-Goossens, 1998; De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001), which explains that trust in the firm's benevolence plays an important role in alleviating the fear of exploitation of individuals high on other-orientation (Bogaert et al., 2008; Boone et al., 2010). Furthermore, individuals high on other-orientation seek to fulfill a moral need for fairness in their relationships with the firm and its managers (Bridoux and Stoelhorst, accepted). As a consequence, they risk strong negative moral emotions such as anger if managers behave unfairly, not only toward them (Stouten et al., 2005) but also toward third parties (Nelissen and Zeelenberg, 2009). This risk is lower when associating with a firm that is perceived to be high on integrity, which offers a second explanation for the importance of trust for stakeholders high on other-orientation.

In contrast, in their relationships with the firm and its managers, individuals low on other-orientation are focused primarily on satisfying their needs for material well-being and they expect the same from intelligent others (Bridoux and Stoelhorst, accepted; Van Lange and Kuhlman, 1994). For example, in situations where cooperation could take place, individuals low on other orientation expect others to be noncooperative and opt for non-cooperation themselves unless cooperating serves their own interest best (e.g., Van Dijk et al., 2004). Because individuals low on other-orientation tend to prioritize their need for material well-being and invest less in their relationships with the firm and its managers, they face a lower risk of being exploited and, as a result, trust is less important for these individuals than it is for individuals high on other-orientation (Joireman et al., 1997; Boone et al., 2010). Thus, we expect stakeholders' reactions to tradeoffs to be more sensitive to trust for individuals high on other-orientation than for the ones low on this personality trait:

Hypothesis 3: Stakeholders' other-orientation strengthens the mediation effect of trust on the relationship between a firm's tradeoffs and stakeholders' intention to associate with the firm.

### Methods

### Experimental Design and Procedure

Stakeholders' responses to tradeoffs between self- and otherdirected CSR were studied using a between-subject experimental design based on vignettes among 908 participants. Participants were presented with "similar but not identical" scenarios where self- and other-directed CSR was manipulated (Wallander, 2009, p. 505). Vignette studies have frequently been used in academic research relating to CSR (e.g., Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Sen et al., 2006; White et al., 2012; Rupp et al., 2013). Vignettes have also been used to study consumers' responses to tradeoffs in product attributes (e.g., Barone et al., 2000; Berens et al., 2007) and the moderating influence of personal values (Adams et al., 2011). To avoid framing effects, participants were randomly assigned to one of the vignettes (Berens et al., 2007).

To ensure that our results were robust across stakeholder groups, we developed vignettes in which participants were put in the shoes of customers or prospective employees. In line with Hillenbrand et al. (2013), we chose customers and employees as they are the most immediate stakeholders of any firm and have the greatest impact on firms' stakeholder management (Aguilera et al., 2007). This also had the advantage that we could select our participants from the same participant pool for both stakeholder groups, which helps increase comparability across the two stakeholder groups. Like in similar studies (e.g., Sen et al., 2006), our participants were graduate students (N = 908).

We wanted to check that our results were not idiosyncratic to the stakeholder group presented as the other group in the vignettes. Thus, we presented the participants who were asked to imagine themselves as prospective employees with either suppliers in developing countries or the environment as the other stakeholder group. In contrast, we only investigated customers' reactions in relation to suppliers in developing countries to limit the number of participants needed. We chose the suppliers in developing countries and the environment as other stakeholder groups for two reasons. First, our pretest showed that participants were on average sensitive to these stakeholders. Second, the firm's investments in these two stakeholder groups only very indirectly benefit customers and prospective employees, so there is indeed a tradeoff between these stakeholder groups' material interests that managers must manage rather than a win-win situation where both stakeholder groups' interests are easily reconciled. We thus collected responses for three sets (customers—suppliers in developing countries; employees—suppliers in developing countries; employees—environment) of three vignettes (selfdirected CSR > other-directed CSR; self-directed CSR < otherdirected CSR; high self- and other-directed CSR). We collected responses for the case of high CSR toward both stakeholder groups in order to be able to use stakeholders' reactions in the absence of tradeoff as benchmark.

Our vignettes (see Appendix in Data Sheet 1) portrayed a hypothetical company ABC that sells electronic goods and is doing well financially. This context was chosen because our participant pool, graduate students, are "significant patrons of consumer electronics retailers" making this context "particularly relevant" for them (Wagner et al., 2009, p. 80). The vignettes presented company ABC as scoring "much higher" or "slightly lower" than major competitors in its treatment of the participant's stakeholder group and as scoring "much higher" or "slightly lower" in its treatment of another stakeholder group. To enhance credibility, the information on company ABC's stakeholder management was described as provided by an independent and highly respected rating agency (Mohr and Webb, 2005).

CSR aimed at employees, consumers, and suppliers was described in terms of how company ABC scores in terms of distributive and procedural justice because good relationships with stakeholders are based on principles of distributive and procedural justice (Hosmer and Kiewitz, 2005; Rupp et al., 2006). Research shows that both consumers and employees identify fair processes and procedures as important in their dealings with companies (Folger and Bies, 1989; Kumar, 1997; Hillenbrand et al., 2013). With regard to distributive justice, the vignettes described wages for employees (Schminke et al., 1997), prices of products for consumers (Peloza and Shang, 2011), and prices paid to suppliers (Park-Poaps and Rees, 2010). Procedural justice toward employees was operationalized based on the key managerial responsibilities toward employees outlined by Folger and Bies (1989). Procedural justice toward consumers closely mirrored the employee vignette to enhance comparability between these two stakeholder groups. Procedural justice toward supplier was operationalized using Kumar (1997) and Duffy et al. (2003). Following Mohr and Webb (2005), the firm's treatment of the environment was operationalized using dimensions such as pollution of factories, recycling of materials, and programs to conserve water and energy.

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations and with the approval of the Ethics Committee Economics and Business (University of Amsterdam). The vignettes were pretested to ensure that they were perceived as realistic. This pretest indicated that vignettes reporting much lower levels of CSR, especially self-directed CSR, were perceived as unrealistic. As a result, and in line with Berens et al. (2007), we chose to avoid extremely negative levels of the manipulation for low self- and other-directed CSR in order to ensure that the vignette came across as sufficiently realistic. The online questionnaire took approximately 20 min to complete. Participants were graduate students from 13 Dutch universities who were solicited to participate in the study by a student either on campus (e.g., in the university canteen) or via e-mail. In the days following this first contact, the students who accepted to participate received an e-mail containing the link to the online questionnaire.

### Measures

### Dependent Variables

For customers the dependent variable is purchase intention. The four-item scale is adopted from White et al. (2012) and includes the items: "I would be likely to purchase a product from ABC," "I would be willing to buy a product from ABC," "I would likely make ABC one of my first choices in consumer goods electronics," and "I would exert a great deal of effort to purchase a product from ABC." For prospective employees the dependent variable is job pursuit intention, measured with a four-item scale coming from Greening and Turban (2000): "I would put in a great deal of effort to work for ABC," "I would be interested in pursuing a job application with ABC," "I am likely to send my resume (CV) to ABC," and "I am likely to accept a job offer from ABC." For both variables, the answer scale was seven-point ranging from not true for me to very true for me.

### Trust

We used the scale from Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) and measured participants' trust in Company ABC on a semantic differential seven-point scale ranging from "very incompetent/very competent," "very undependable/very dependable," "of very low integrity/of very high integrity," and "very dishonest and untrustworthy/very honest and trustworthy."

### Individual Characteristics

As suggested by Schuler and Cording (2006), we used Schwartz's (1994) self-transcendence vs. self-enhancement dimension to capture other-orientation. Schwartz's personal values have already been used to explain stakeholders' reactions to firms' CSR activities (e.g., Golob et al., 2008). Self-enhancement represents a self-oriented view of social situations and involves "the pursuit of one's relative success and dominance over others" (Schwartz, 1994, p. 25). It includes the values power (defined as valuing social status and prestige, control, or dominance over people and resources) and achievement (valuing personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards). In contrast, self-transcendence relates to an otheroriented view of social situations as it expresses "acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare" (Schwartz, 1994, p. 25). Self-transcendence comprises universalism (understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature), and benevolence (preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact).

Self-transcendence and self-enhancement were measured using the portrait value questionnaire developed by Schwartz et al. (2001). Each portrait describes a person's goals or aspirations that point implicitly to the importance of a value. For example, "It is important to him to respond to the needs of others. He tries to support those he knows." describes a person to whom benevolence is important. For each portrait, participants answer "How much like you is this person?" on a 6-point scale ranging from "not like me at all" to "very much like me." The number of portraits ranges from three (power) to four (benevolence, achievement) to six (universalism), reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values<sup>1</sup> .

### Control Variables

The demographics gender, age, nationality, and field of study were included as controls. In addition, for the vignettes related to prospective employees, we measured participants' interest in working for a consumer goods company and asked whether they had already found a job for after graduation to control for the influence of these factors on participants' intention to apply for a job at Company ABC. Finally, we controlled for participants' support for the other stakeholder group because previous research has found a moderating effect of customer support for a specific group on the relationships between CSR toward this group and customers' evaluation and purchase intention: customers with high level of support for a particular stakeholder group react more strongly to a firm's CSR directed at this group (e.g., Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Mohr and Webb, 2005). We measured participants' support for the environment with three items adopted from Mohr and Webb (2005). A sample item is "Companies should make every effort to reduce the pollution from their factories." For support for suppliers we adopted three items from De Pelsmacker and Janssens (2007), including "Treating suppliers in developing countries fairly is important."

### Manipulation Checks

Participants were asked to assess the company's treatment of the stakeholder groups described in the vignette they received. For

<sup>1</sup>Following Schwartz's (1992) recommendation, we mean-centered participants' scores to control for individuals' differences in the use of the response scale. Below we report results using mean-centered self-transcendence scores to capture otherorientation. We also ran all the analyses with mean-centered self-enhancement scores and scores combining self-transcendence and self-enhancement without mean-centering. The findings are almost identical. In the very few cases where the results are not identical, they are slightly more significant than the results we report for self-transcendence, thus fully supporting the conclusions we draw based on self-transcendence.

example, those put in the role of prospective employees were asked to rate the statement "ABC treats its employees well" on a seven-point scale (not at all—very much). All participants were also asked to rate "I had no difficulty imagining myself in the situation" on a seven-point Likert scale (not at all-very much) to determine vignette credibility.

### RESULTS

We collected 908 completed questionnaires. Among our participants, 54% were female, 76% were Dutch (90% European), 39% studied Business, and Economics (the rest was spread over many fields of study), and 16% had already found a job for after graduation. The average age was 24.44 with little variation (SD = 2.45). The 908 participants were divided relatively equally across the nine vignettes (see **Table 1** for exact numbers).

### Internal Validity of Multi-Item Scales and Manipulation Checks

We assessed the measures using confirmatory factor analysis. After allowing the error terms to covary among some item-pairs for self-transcendence, the fit of a four-factor model (including self-transcendence, trust, support for the other stakeholder group, and the dependent variable, namely purchase intention or job pursuit intention) is satisfactory. For the customers vignettes, the χ 2 is 358.28 for 177◦ of freedom, the comparative fit index (CFI) reaches 0.90, and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.06. For the employees vignettes, the χ 2 is 469.53 for 178◦ of freedom, CFI is 0.94, and RMSEA is 0.05. Sequential χ <sup>2</sup> difference tests show that these models fit the data better than alternative models with fewer or more factors. Cronbach's alphas are reported in **Table 1**.

Our manipulations were successful. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) conducted to determine the effects of the manipulated self- and other-directed CSR on perceived stakeholder treatment show that the manipulated CSR significantly affected perceived treatment in the expected direction for both the own and the other group. For example, an ANOVA indicates that the manipulated other-directed CSR significantly related to our manipulation checks "ABC treats its suppliers well" and "ABC treats the environment well" (F = 268.88, p < 0.001): multiple comparisons show significant differences between the vignettes in which the manipulation was different for the other group and no significant difference between the vignette in which the manipulation was the same. With regard to vignette credibility, the mean across the entire sample was 4.65 on a seven-point scale and ratings were not significantly different across vignettes.

### Descriptive Statistics

**Table 1** presents descriptive statistics and correlations. In line with previous studies (e.g., Meier and Frey, 2004), men in our sample score lower on other-orientation than women and Business and Economics students score lower on other-orientation than students from other fields. Our Dutch participants score lower on other-orientation than other nationalities, which might be due to the fact that they are also younger (Van Lange et al., 1997). Participants' support for both suppliers and the environment relates positively to otherorientation, which is in line with the literature on CSR that has taken personal values into account (e.g., Doran, 2009).

The correlations indicate that intention to associate is higher in the absence than in the presence of tradeoffs among stakeholder groups' welfare. Analyses of covariance including the control variables also support that stakeholders' intention to associate with the firm is significantly lower when selfor other-directed CSR is low than when both are high (e.g., for the customers—suppliers set of vignettes, MSelf-directed CSR <sup>&</sup>gt; Other-directed CSR = 3.83, MSelf-directed CSR <sup>&</sup>lt; Other-directed CSR = 3.92, MHigh self- and other-directed CSR = 5.24, F = 61.74, p < 0.001). These results support the interest of studying stakeholders' reactions to tradeoffs. Finally, the correlations show that trust is significantly and positively related to purchase and job pursuit intention.

### Hypothesis Tests

To investigate Hypothesis 1, which predicts that stakeholders' other-orientation moderates the relationships between a tradeoff and purchase and job pursuit intention, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses. For each of the three sets of vignettes, we compared the vignette with low self-directed CSR and high other-directed CSR (Self < Other) with the vignette with high self-directed CSR and low other-directed CSR (Self > Other). In our regressions, we entered the control variables and the dummy for the vignette Self < Other in the first step (Models 1a, 2a and 3a, **Table 2**), the moderating variable, other-orientation, in the second step (Models 1b, 2b, and 3b, **Table 2**), and the interaction effect of this moderating variable with the vignette dummy in the last step (Models 1c, 2c, and 3c, **Table 2**). The results support Hypothesis 1. The main effects of the vignettes and other-orientation are not significant in Models 1 and 2; however, the interaction term is significant and positive.

We graphed the interactive effects to better understand their nature. **Figure 1** shows that, in the case of suppliers as the other stakeholder group, purchase intention and job pursuit intention are not, on average, significantly different for the vignette Self < Other compared to the vignette Self > Other because individuals high and low on other-orientation have opposite reactions to the vignettes. Stakeholders high on other-orientation (i.e., one standard deviation above 0) are more willing to associate with the firm when the tradeoff is in favor of suppliers in developing countries, while stakeholders low on other-orientation (i.e., one standard deviation below 0) are more attracted to the firm when the tradeoff is in their favor.

In contrast, for the vignettes related to the environment, the coefficient for the vignette Self < Other is significant and negative. Thus, on average, participants have a higher intention to pursue a job with a firm that makes a tradeoff between employeeand environment-directed CSR that is in favor of employees. Other-orientation moderates this relationship in the sense that the decrease in job pursuit intention between the vignette Self > Other and the vignette Self < Other is smaller for participants higher on other-orientation. **Figure 2** depicts this interaction.


TABLE

1


Descriptive

statistics

and

correlations.

*low.*

TABLE 2 | Results of regression analyses testing the moderation effect of other-orientation on the relationship between tradeoffs and purchase and job pursuit intention.


*<sup>a</sup>The dependent variable is Purchase intention*

*<sup>b</sup>The dependent variable is Job Pursuit intention*

*The unstandardized coefficients are reported.*

\**p* < *0.05;* \*\**p* < *0.01;* \*\*\**p* < *0.001, two-tailed test*

*The label "vignette Self* < *Other" refers to the scenario in which self-directed CSR was low and other-directed CSR was high. The baseline is the vignette in which self-directed CSR was high and other-directed CSR was low.*

consumers–suppliers (left) and employees-suppliers vignettes (right). The label "Self > Other" refers to the scenario in which self-directed CSR was high and other-directed CSR was low. The label "Self < Other" refers the vignette in which self-directed CSR was low and other-directed CSR was high.

Hypothesis 2 proposes that trust mediates the relationship between tradeoffs and intention to associate with the firm. We used Hayes' (2012) PROCESS application to test this hypothesis. As hypothesized, tradeoffs have an indirect effect through trust (see **Tables 3**, **4**), which is positive for the customers-suppliers (0.38) and employees-suppliers vignettes (0.48), but negative for the employees-environment ones (−0.168). The Sobel test and bootstrap confidence intervals show that these indirect effects are significant, as evidenced, in the case of the customers-suppliers vignettes, by a Sobel z = 0.09 (p = 0.00) and a 95% biascorrected bootstrap confidence interval that does not include zero (0.23–0.57). Interestingly, the total relationship between the vignette Self < Other and intention to associate was not significant for the customers-suppliers (0.10, p = 0.52, Model 4b) and employees-suppliers vignettes (−0.08, p = 0.63, Model 5b) because the indirect effect (0.38 and 0.46, respectively) and

the direct effect controlling for trust (−0.28, p = 0.05, Model 4c, and −0.56, p = 0.00, Model 5c) have an opposite sign. This suggests the presence of mediational suppression, i.e., the negative direct effect of a tradeoff in favor of the other stakeholder group is canceled out by the positive indirect effect through trust, resulting in an insignificant total effect (MacKinnon et al., 2000; Shrout and Bolger, 2002).

Hypothesis 3 proposes that other-orientation strengthens the mediating effect of trust in the relationship between tradeoffs and stakeholders' intention to associate with the firm. We used Hayes' (2012) PROCESS application to assess the significance of conditional indirect effects at different values of the moderator variable (i.e., moderated mediation, Preacher et al., 2007). Results for Hypothesis 3 are reported in **Tables 5**, **6**.

**Table 6** shows the conditional indirect effect of a preferential treatment through trust at three levels of other orientation: the mean, one standard deviation above, and one standard deviation below the mean. For the customers-suppliers vignettes, the 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals indicate that the three conditional effects are positive and significant. The conditional effect is significantly larger when other-orientation is high than when it is low to moderate. For the employeessuppliers, two of the three conditional indirect effects are significant. The indirect and positive effect of a tradeoff in favor of suppliers through trust is observed when other-orientation is moderate to high, but not when it is low. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported for customers-suppliers and employees-suppliers. For the employees-environment vignettes, Hypothesis 3 is not supported. We observe a stronger indirect and negative effect of a tradeoff in favor of the environment through trust when other-orientation is low to moderate than when other-orientation is high (where it is not statistically different from zero).

The results reported in **Table 5** show which stage of the mediation path is moderated by other-orientation. Models 7a, 8a, and 9a in **Table 5** show that the interaction term of the vignette Self < Other and other-orientation is positive and statistically significant at the 5% level in the employees-suppliers vignettes (b = 0.37, p = 0.03), but not significant for customers-suppliers (b = 0.21, p = 0.14) and employees-environment vignettes (b = 0.24, p = 0.07). Models 7b, 8b, and 9b show that the interaction of trust and other-orientation is significant in the customers-suppliers vignettes (b = 0.16, p = 0.05), but not for the others. This indicates a moderation of the first stage in the employees-suppliers and of the second stage in the other vignettes.

### DISCUSSION

### Contributions and Implications

Our study extends the limited knowledge about stakeholders' reactions to tradeoffs between self- and other-directed CSR (e.g., Handelman and Arnold, 1999; Auger et al., 2003, 2008, 2013; Vlachos et al., 2009, 2014; Rupp et al., 2013). At the most fundamental level, our finding that stakeholders' intention to associate with the firm is significantly lower in the presence than in the absence of a CSR tradeoff supports the claim that studying CSR tradeoffs is relevant. We extends the burgeoning literature on CSR tradeoffs by studying (1) the moderating effect of other-orientation, (2) the mediating role of trust, (3) the reactions of both prospective employees and customers, and (4) by considering CSR targeted at suppliers in developing countries and at the environment separately rather than using a measure of CSR that aggregates the firm's CSR toward several other stakeholder group. By doing this, our work contributes in several ways to the literature on CSR at the individual level, which is still in its infancy (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012), and to the organizational psychology literature.

A first contribution is to show that stakeholders' otherorientation helps explain stakeholders' reactions to CSR tradeoffs. The literature on social value orientations in social psychology and behavioral economics has long argued that some people are primarily focused on their material self-interest, whereas others also care for other people's welfare and for fairness as a moral norm (e.g., Van Lange, 1999; Fehr and Fischbacher, 2002a). In the present paper we relate this body of literature to the three motives that, according to Rupp and colleagues, drive stakeholders' reactions to other-directed CSR. For the micro-CSR literature, our finding of a moderating effect of otherorientation adds another boundary condition in the Rupp and colleagues' multimotive framework in addition to the qualifying effect of individual differences in moral identity tested by Rupp et al. (2013). In particular, both Rupp et al. (2013) and Vlachos et al. (2009) found that other-directed CSR matters less when self-directed CSR is high. For example, Vlachos et al. (2009) found that in case of high self-directed CSR in the form of high perceived service quality consumer trust was less negatively affected by consumers' attributing the firm's other-directed CSR to selfish motives rather than altruistic motives. Our findings TABLE 3 | Regression results for testing the mediation effect of trust on the relationship between tradeoffs and purchase and job pursuit intention.


*The unstandardized coefficients are reported.*

\**p* < *0.05;* \*\**p* < *0.01;* \*\*\**p* < *0.001, two-tailed test*

*The label "vignette Self* < *Other" refers to the scenario in which self-directed CSR was low and other-directed CSR was high. The baseline is the vignette in which self-directed CSR was high and other-directed CSR was low.*

#### TABLE 4 | Indirect effect and significance using normal distributiona.


*<sup>a</sup>Bootstrap sample size* = *5000; LL* = *lower limit; UL* = *upper limit; CI* = *confidence interval.*

suggest that this egocentric bias may be especially important to explain the reactions of stakeholders lower on other-orientation. Similarly, our findings suggest the need to qualify Rupp et al.'s (2013) conclusion that high other-directed CSR can compensate for lower self-directed CSR: this conclusion is likely to hold for stakeholders higher on other-orientation, but may not hold for stakeholders lower on this trait.

Beyond the CSR field, for organizational psychologists interested in organizational justice, our work adds to the body of evidence supporting the use of the relational model (Tyler and Lind, 1992) and deontic model of organizational justice (Folger, 2001; Folger et al., 2005) in addition to the instrumental model (Thibaut and Walker, 1975). Furthermore, like Rupp and colleagues had previously shown for moral identity (Skarlicki and Rupp, 2010; Rupp et al., 2013), our results reveal the need for a nuanced story: the relational and deontic models may be more relevant to understand the reactions of people higher on other-orientation than those of people lower on this personality trait. For future research this suggests including personality traits linked to all three motives, for example risk aversion in relation to the uncertainty reduction motive (Colquitt et al., 2006), other-orientation and the need to belong (Leary et al., 2013) in relation to the relational motive, and moral identity in relation to the morality motive (Rupp et al., 2013).

For macro theories such as stakeholder theory, our results indicate a need to rethink the concept of tradeoffs by adopting more realistic microfoundations (cf., Bosse and Phillips, Forthcoming; Bridoux and Stoelhorst, 2014, accepted). In relation to tradeoffs, stakeholder theory has narrowly focused on stakeholders' material well-being, which leads to see tradeoffs among stakeholder groups in all situations in which increasing the material well-being of one stakeholder group comes at some material costs for another group. Even stakeholder theorists arguing that managers should not frame decisions as trading off stakeholders' interests but should look for ways to achieve winwin synergies have primarily emphasized stakeholders' material well-being in their illustrations of such win-win synergies (e.g., Freeman et al., 2010). For example, to defend treating employees well, they argue that increasing wages might improve employees' well-being and, at the same time, serve shareholders' interests because employees' productivity and, thus, profits for shareholders increase. Yet, our results show, in line with Rupp


*The unstandardized coefficients are reported.*

\**p* < *0.05;* \*\**p* < *0.01;* \*\*\**p* < *0.001, two-tailed test*

*The label "vignette Self* < *Other" refers to the scenario in which self-directed CSR was low and other-directed CSR was high. The baseline is the vignette in which self-directed CSR was high and other-directed CSR was low.*


*<sup>a</sup>The indirect effect of trust is reported for the mean of other-orientation (Mean) and for one standard deviation below (–1SD) and one standard deviation above (*+*1SD) the mean; Bootstrap sample size, 5000; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; CI, confidence interval.*

and colleagues' framework, that personal material well-being is not all that matters for stakeholders higher on other-orientation. So, it might in fact be easier to reconcile the economic and moral component in stakeholder-related activities than the literature usually assumes, because stakeholders higher on otherorientation value relationships and morality (beyond the material benefits that these relationships or morality could bring them). In our example, shareholders higher on other-orientation may accept lower returns from firms investing in other stakeholder groups' well-being. This calls for a concept of tradeoff that is not based exclusively on stakeholders' material well-being but that is based on more realistic views regarding what stakeholders really value (cf. Harrison and Wicks, 2013).

A second contribution of our study is to answer recent calls in the organizational literature to research mechanisms linking CSR activities to individual-level outcomes (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Jones et al., 2014). In line with recent work in the CSR literature (Vlachos et al., 2009; Hansen et al., 2011; Farooq et al., 2014), we found that trust mediates the relationship between tradeoffs and stakeholders' intention to associate with the firm, Yet, the effect is more complex than scholars previously suggested. With suppliers as the other group, while the direct effect of a tradeoff in suppliers' favor is negative, the indirect effect, through trust, is positive, indicating a "suppressed mediation" (MacKinnon et al., 2000; Shrout and Bolger, 2002). Thus, in some tradeoff situations, much higher other-directed CSR seems to compensate for slightly lower self-directed CSR, because, we argue, stakeholders perceive otherdirected CSR as the manifestation that the firm will care for the future material well-being of all stakeholders (Rupp, 2011; Farooq et al., 2014), will care to maintain high-quality relationships with stakeholders (Rupp et al., 2006), and will favor ethically justifiable behavior (Vlachos et al., 2009). This explains why stakeholders' intention to associate with a firm does not significantly differ between a tradeoff in favor of stakeholders' own group or in favor of suppliers: the direct and indirect effects cancel each other out (MacKinnon et al., 2000, p. 175). To our knowledge, studies have not yet recognized that trust can have a suppression effect. More generally, failure to include such key intervening variables in previous research may help explain why scholars have been "unable to reach an empirically grounded resolution" in the CSR-firm performance relationship' (Vlachos et al., 2009, p. 177). With only trust as mediator, our study cannot help identify which mechanism(s) trust actually suppresses. In line with recent micro-CSR research (Farooq et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2014), we recommend that future work includes additional mediators of the relationship between CSR tradeoffs and stakeholders' reactions. The negative direct effect that remains after introducing trust suggests that such a mechanism could be simply the perceived immediate cost to self of high other-directed CSR.

In addition, with suppliers as the other group, trust mediated the relationship between tradeoffs and stakeholders' intention to associate with the firm for individuals who scored higher on other-orientation, but less (or not at all) for individuals who scored lower on other-orientation. We expected such a moderation because valuing relationships and fairness makes individuals higher on other-orientation more vulnerable to managers' unfair behavior, both toward themselves and toward other stakeholder groups. The organizational behavior and psychology literature has often emphasized the role of trust, providing strong evidence over the last three decades that trust tends to matter in explaining employees' attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2007). Yet, less attention has been paid to individual differences in how sensitive employees' attitudes and behaviors are to trust. Our results suggest that it would be interesting to research the link between propensity to trust (Mayer and Davis, 1999) and other-orientation, as well as investigating whether other-orientation indeed implies a higher sensitivity to the benevolence and integrity aspects of trust in particular, as suggested by our arguments building on Rupp and colleagues' framework.

In interpreting our results for the mediating role of trust and the moderated mediation, it is important to keep in mind that we tested scenarios in which the unfavorable side of the tradeoff is presented as slightly lower CSR than at competing firms whereas the favorable side is formulated as much higher. This is in line with some previous work (e.g., Berens et al., 2007) and based on our pretest of the vignettes seemed necessary to ensure realism, but this also means that in all tradeoff situations we described a firm with a combined CSR (self- plus other-directed CSR) above the industry average. Consumers and employees associate voluntarily with the firm, which implies that their decision to associate with the firm is necessarily relative to the other options available to them. As such, it is certainly easier to trust a firm favoring another stakeholder group if self-directed CSR is only slightly lower than what the available options would offer and if the combined CSR is above average compared to these other options. Stakeholders' acceptance of a tradeoff in favor of another group is very likely limited, even for individuals high on otherorientation, as they care for their material well-being besides fairness and others' well-being (Van Lange, 1999; Auger et al., 2013).

A third contribution of our work is to offer the opportunity to compare prospective employees' and customers' reactions to CSR tradeoffs in the same study. Previous research focused on either (prospective) employees or customers (e.g., Handelman and Arnold, 1999; Auger et al., 2003, 2008, 2013; Vlachos et al., 2009, 2014; Rupp et al., 2013). Our patterns of results are very similar across the two groups, yet not completely identical. Interestingly, the direct effect of a CSR tradeoff in favor of suppliers in developing countries after controlling for the mediating role of trust is smaller for customers than for prospective employees (see the coefficients for the vignette Self < Other in Models 4c and 5c, as well as Models 7b and 8b). Assuming, as conjectured above, that this negative direct effect is due at least partly to the perceived immediate cost to self of high other-directed CSR, this difference in the strength of this negative direct effect between prospective employees and customers makes sense: prospective employees' total personal welfare is much more dependent on the firm's CSR toward employees than customers' total personal welfare is on the firm's CSR toward customers.

A fourth contribution of our work is to reveal differences in stakeholders' reactions according to which other stakeholder group is involved in the tradeoff. We did not anticipate such differences. As stated in the method section, we included scenarios related to the environment to check the generalizability of our findings to other stakeholder groups besides suppliers in developing countries. Yet, in contrast to a tradeoff in favor of suppliers in developing countries, for the employeesenvironment vignettes, we found a moderating effect but no opposite reactions based on other-orientation. Furthermore, a tradeoff in favor of the environment had a negative direct effect on participants' intention to associate with the firm as well as a negative indirect effect through trust, suggesting two mechanisms working in the same direction. Finally, the negative indirect effect was stronger for participants lower on otherorientation rather than for the ones higher on this personality trait. These findings are in line with recent studies showing that the identity of the other group matters to explain stakeholders' reactions to CSR (Jones et al., 2014). This difference between suppliers in developing countries and the environment as other stakeholder group cannot be explained by higher support for CSR directed at suppliers than for CSR toward the environment. Our participants reported high support for both types of CSR activities and even slightly higher support for the environment than for suppliers in developing countries (see averages in **Table 1**). In addition, we included participants' support for the other stakeholder group as a control variable.

Rupp and colleagues' framework suggests three potential reasons for differences in findings between a tradeoff involving the environment and one involving other human beings. Compared to CSR directed at other human beings, stakeholders may perceive CSR directed at the environment as revealing less about how fairly the firm will treat themselves in the future, thus not fulfilling their need for control over future outcomes to the same extent as CSR directed at suppliers in developing countries (Willness and Jones, 2013). Second, CSR directed at the environment is less relationally oriented and may not fulfill stakeholders' need to relate to others as well as CSR directed at other human beings does (Aguilera et al., 2007; Glavas and Kelley, 2014). Finally, the environment itself is not capable of having sensations such as pain and pleasure, which many philosophers consider as an important determinant of moral status in Western society (Bentham, 1789/1966). As a result, stakeholders' concern for morality may only drive stakeholders' reactions when the CSR directed at the environment is framed as targeted indirectly to third parties that have a moral status in stakeholders' eyes (e.g., future generations, some animals). Future research should test whether CSR directed at the environment indeed has a lower heuristic, relational, and moral value than forms of CSR that more directly involve human beings, against alternative explanations. For example, it is possible that our participants perceived CSR directed at suppliers in developing countries as more morality-based or values-driven than CSR directed at the environment, which could be perceived as more self-serving or profit-driven given that in our vignettes this related to reducing pollution and minimizing waste (Pandey et al., 2013; Willness and Jones, 2013).

For the organizational justice field, our study provides further evidence that CSR is a good setting to investigate the drivers and impacts of justice perceptions and highlights individual differences in this area. Research seeking to further understand the different motives driving reactions to third-party justice could use a CSR setting and experimental method to disentangle the effects of the uncertainty reduction, relational, and moral motives. Among others, building on our results that trust mediates the relationship between CSR tradeoffs and stakeholders' responses, such work could study whether different forms of trust have a stronger mediating effect on the justicebehavior relationship for some motives than for others. We would, for example, expect competence-based trust to be a stronger mediator in relation to uncertainty reduction than in relation to morality.

To managers facing the need to make tradeoffs, the moderating effect of stakeholders' other-orientation suggests that which stakeholder group managers decide to give priority to influences the type of stakeholders who will be attracted to the firm. While stakeholders lower on other-orientation are more likely to join firms that prioritize their own group, stakeholders higher on other-orientation might avoid these firms if they feel the advantages for themselves come at a high cost to other stakeholders they care about. These self-selection effects may impact firm performance in the longer term, as stakeholders higher on other-orientation are likely to be more cooperative and better citizens (Rioux and Penner, 2001; Bridoux and Stoelhorst, 2014; Hahn, 2015). Thus, in line with CSR scholars' belief that activities directed at secondary stakeholders matter, there may be a win-win-win situation: a sweet spot where relatively heavy investments toward a secondary stakeholder group (win) translate in relational and moral value for primary stakeholders higher on other-orientation (win) who are attracted and stay with the firm because of such investments, which pays off for the firm in the longer term (win) thanks to the stronger dedication of these primary stakeholders to their relational partners.

Firms that aim to attract both stakeholders who are high and those who are low on other-orientation could attempt to segment their stakeholders on the basis of their level of other-orientation in order to address their specific needs separately. Arguably, it is what L'Oréal achieved with the acquisition of Body Shop in 2006. With its focus on social and environmental welfare, Body Shop had a culture and values that were very different from L'Oréal's and more appealing to customers and employees high on otherorientation. A key success factor of this segmentation strategy is probably that Body Shop continued to be run independently from the UK, which isolates stakeholders' perceptions of Body Shop's culture and values from decisions taken elsewhere in L'Oréal. Observing that the firm makes decisions to deliver high personal payoffs to stakeholders low on other-orientation may lead stakeholders high on other-orientation to perceive otherdirected CSR as egoistic or as giving in to the pressure of powerful stakeholder groups. Yet, to meet the relational and moral needs of stakeholders high on other-orientation, it is crucial that other-directed CSR is perceived by these stakeholders as values-driven or altruistic to a significant extent (cf. Ellen et al., 2006). Segmentation may be easier to realize for customers than employees because employees may be more aware of the connections between L'Oréal and Body Shop.

An alternative to segmentation would be to temporarily activate a reciprocal or communal orientation in all their stakeholders. This can be done by priming a more inclusive level of identification in stakeholders who would otherwise have a tendency to identify at the personal level as employee or customer in an economic exchange. Specifically, even stakeholders who are low on other-orientation can be brought to see other stakeholders (1) as relational partners whose welfare matters to the self, which corresponds to a reciprocal orientation, or (2) as members of their own community, which corresponds to a communal orientation (Bridoux and Stoelhorst, accepted). In particular, when a communal orientation is primed in stakeholders, they value CSR directed at other stakeholders as if it were CSR directed at themselves (Bridoux and Stoelhorst, accepted). Managers can prime a communal orientation using substantive and symbolic management practices that help make a common identity salient, e.g., socializing new employees with an emphasis on the common identity, emphasizing stakeholders' commonalities, and using terms like "we" and "us" (rather than "you" and "I") and phrases like "we are a family" (Ashforth and Johnson, 2001). Priming a more inclusive level of identification with such practices is more likely to be successful with employees than customers.

Furthermore, our study suggests that trust is a key mechanism through which tradeoffs impact stakeholders' reactions: otherdirected CSR may contribute to building trust in the organization that help offset the negative impact of lower material benefits for the stakeholders themselves, especially for stakeholders higher on other-orientation. To leverage this mechanism, managers of firms that invest in CSR activities could communicate to groups that benefit less from these activities how the CSR activities (a) relate to the firm's values in order to enhance stakeholders' perceptions of the firm's integrity, (b) improve the firm's relationships with its stakeholders in order to enhance stakeholders' perceptions of the firm's benevolence, and (c) show the firm's financial viability in order to enhance stakeholders' perception of the firm's ability.

### Limitations and Future Research Directions

Several future research directions stem from the limitation of the present research. We used hypothetical vignettes to manipulate the firm's self- and other-directed CSR. Participants were exposed to the firm's record regarding CSR directed at two stakeholder groups in quick succession. In reality, stakeholders may encounter such information at different points in time. Future research could investigate whether time intervals or a different sequence between self- and other-directed CSR would affect stakeholders' behavioral reactions to tradeoffs. The anchoring effect in human decision making (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974) suggests that the first piece of information about a firm's stakeholder management practices may have a larger effect on stakeholders' overall evaluation and reactions than later pieces of information.

Our vignettes describe a consumer goods company (Wagner et al., 2009). Reactions to tradeoffs may vary across industries. For example, stakeholders should be more sensitive to information about CSR toward suppliers in industries where firms have repeatedly been criticized for their bad treatment of suppliers in developing countries (e.g., the apparel or food industry) and less sensitive to the firm's treatment of the environment in industries where firms have a negligible influence on the environment (e.g., services industries). In addition, as explained above, to ensure that the vignette came across as sufficiently realistic (Berens et al., 2007), we chose to describe the tradeoff with low self-directed CSR as the firm scoring "slightly lower" than major competitors. Future research could look into more extreme tradeoffs. We expect such research to find a threshold below which high other-directed CSR cannot compensate for low self-directed CSR even for individuals high on other-orientation. We also made the choice of describing the firm as doing well financially because fairness assessments have been shown to differ depending on whether the firm is making or losing money: outsiders found it fairer to decrease CSR directed at employees when the firm was losing money than when it was doing well (Kahneman et al., 1986). It is not clear how, if manipulated, this contextual factor would play out in the case of tradeoffs.

As it is often the case in studies of stakeholders' reactions (e.g., Sen et al., 2006), the dependent variables were self-reported intentions rather than actual behavior. A drawback of this is that participants might realize that their reported intention does not have actual consequences. To check the external validity of these results, future research should study actual behavior or at least control for respondents' social desirability bias in reporting intentions to associate with a firm. Using graduate students recruited on several university campuses as participants might also be viewed as a limitation. First, our results could suffer from a selection bias as it may be that students higher on other-orientation are more willing to fill in a survey. Second, the generalizability of our findings can be questioned as all our participants are young and highly educated and most of them are Dutch. The Dutch culture, like most Western cultures, has been qualified as individualistic, i.e., a culture where everyone is supposed to take care of him- or her-self and the "I" dominates over the "We" (Hofstede, 2001). The very limited cross-cultural micro-CSR work published so far (e.g., Vlachos et al., 2014) suggests that stakeholders react differently to tradeoffs involving self- and other-directed CSR in highly collectivistic cultures. In highly collectivistic cultures we expect other-orientation to play a weaker moderating role when other-directed CSR targets stakeholders that the respondent perceives as belonging his/her ingroup because in such cultures the self is often defined at the collective level, which implies that the pursuit of self-interest coincides with the pursuit of the ingroup's interest. In contrast, for other-directed CSR targeted at stakeholders that are perceived as members of outgroups, we would expect other-orientation to play the same moderating role as in the present study.

To conclude, in line with Rupp and colleagues' multimotive framework, we found that stakeholders' intention to associate with a firm is not only influenced by self-directed CSR but also by CSR targeted at other stakeholders. We added that these effects take place in part through trust and depend on stakeholders' other-orientation. Our results further suggested that the identity of the other stakeholder group matters: our participants higher on other-orientation were more responsive to CSR directed at suppliers in developing countries than at the environment. Similarly to what Mitchell et al. (1997) have done for stakeholders' salience to managers, it seems important to research which attributes and mechanisms make stakeholders belonging to other groups salient and important to a focal stakeholder.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

FB made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work, and to the drafting of the paper. NS made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work, and to the drafting of the paper. DD made substantial contributions to the design of the work, to the interpretation of data for the work, and to the drafting of the paper

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We sincerely thank our editor and three reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions throughout the review process. We also thank Juliette Bonsen, Hans Boudewijn, Tara de Korte, Anna Nevskaja, and Anne Spapens for their assistance in data collection.

### SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg. 2015.01992

### REFERENCES


Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46, 35–57.


theory and preliminary evidence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 73, 733–746. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733


**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The reviewer Ante Glavas and the handling editor declared a current collaboration and the handling editor states that the process nevertheless met the standards of a fair and objective review. "The reviewer Chelsea R. Willness and the handling editor declared a current collaboration and the handling editor states that the process nevertheless met the standards of a fair and objective review."

Copyright © 2016 Bridoux, Stofberg and Den Hartog. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: Enabling Employees to Employ More of Their Whole Selves at Work

#### Ante Glavas\*

Department of Strategy, Sustainability, and Entrepreneurship, Kedge Business School, Marseille, France

Research at the individual level of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been growing rapidly. Yet we still lack a more complete understanding of why and how individuals (i.e., employees) are affected by CSR. This study contributes to that gap by exploring the relationship between CSR and employee engagement. Moreover, in order to address the problem of low levels of employee engagement in the workplace, CSR is proposed and tested as a pathway for engaging a significant part of the workforce. Building on engagement theory, a model is tested in which CSR enables employees to bring more of their whole selves to work, which results in employees being more engaged. Data from 15,184 employees in a large professional service firm in the USA was analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results show that authenticity (i.e., being able to show one's whole self at work) positively and significantly mediates the relationship between CSR and employee engagement. However, the other mediator tested in this study, perceived organizational support (POS; i.e., direct benefits to the employee), did not significantly mediate the relationship. In addition, results of moderated mediation suggest that when CSR is extra-role (i.e., not embedded in one's job design such as volunteering), it weakens the relationship between CSR and employee engagement. Moreover, post hoc analyses show that even when POS is controlled for, authenticity has an impact above and beyond POS on employee engagement. These results extend prior CSR literature which has often been top–down and has focused on how employees will be positively affected by what the organization can give them (e.g., POS). Rather, a bottom–up approach might reveal that the more that employees can give of their whole selves, the more engaged they might be at work.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, engagement, organizational psychology, meaningfulness, perceived organizational support, sustainability

### INTRODUCTION

With studies such as that of Gallup (2013) showing that only 13% of employees are engaged worldwide, engagement is among the lowest it has ever been. On the one hand, employee engagement is a major concern for organizations—just in the USA alone, it is estimated the USA economy loses an estimated 450 to 550 billion USD annually due to decreased productivity from disengaged employees (Gallup, 2013). On the other hand, the lack of employee engagement is also

#### Edited by:

Radha R. Sharma, Management Development Institute, India

#### Reviewed by:

Latha Poonamallee, Michigan Technological University, USA Daniel Korschun, Drexel University, USA

> \*Correspondence: Ante Glavas ante.glavas@kedgebs.com

#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 24 December 2015 Accepted: 11 May 2016 Published: 31 May 2016

#### Citation:

Glavas A (2016) Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: Enabling Employees to Employ More of Their Whole Selves at Work. Front. Psychol. 7:796. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00796 a broader societal issue in that employees are spending more and more time at work, yet if work is not meaningful, it can negatively affect employee well-being (Hulin, 2014). For example, a study by Diener and colleagues (Time, 2005) found that work is not even among the top eight sources of satisfaction in life—a key dimension of subjective well-being.

In parallel, there is a counter-trend emerging in a portion of the workforce in that employees are increasingly engaged at work due to corporate social responsibility (CSR). For example, at Walmart, a company widely criticized for its work conditions, CSR became the main source of employee engagement (Glavas, 2012). One of the initiatives was a Personal Sustainability Plan in which each employee crafted a minimum of one major change they would undertake in order to make their life and work more sustainable—in the end, over 500,000 employees voluntarily participated in CSR initiatives, which also resulted in 35,000 new business solutions that benefitted both the planet and the company (Saatchi and Saatchi S, 2014)<sup>1</sup> . Therefore, scholars have recently begun exploring the CSR–engagement relationship, with studies finding a positive and significant relationship between CSR and employee engagement (e.g., Glavas and Piderit, 2009; Caligiuri et al., 2013). Yet, little is known about why, how, and when employees are engaged by CSR (Glavas, 2016).

Therefore, a theoretical model is tested in this study that is built on engagement theory, which puts forward that the more an individual can show of their whole selves at work, the more they will be engaged (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010). Two critical engagement factors are tested in this study, which are perceived organizational support (POS) and the ability to be oneself (i.e., authenticity). Prior literature has often focused on employees benefitting from CSR due to the support they will receive (i.e., POS), because it is proposed that companies higher in CSR will be fairer companies and thus treat their employees more fairly (Cropanzano and Rupp, 2008). This study empirically tests the proposed CSR–POS relationship and goes one step further to explore whether employee perceptions of CSR enable them to live out more of their whole selves (i.e., authenticity) at work. In addition, moderated mediation was explored—specifically, whether the relationship between authenticity and engagement is moderated by extra-role involvement in CSR (i.e., volunteering). Although extra-role involvement in CSR might positively affect employees, perhaps too much extra-role involvement in CSR is not a good thing and might be perceived as taking away time from work. To clarify because volunteering—which is used to measure extra-role involvement in this study—has many different forms, for purposes of this study, volunteering is defined as a corporatesponsored activity of employee involvement in the community and these activities can be initiated by either the employer or employee (Pajo and Lee, 2011).

This study makes the following contributions. It is the first study, based on my review of the literature, to explore the underlying mechanisms (i.e., mediators) between CSR and employee engagement. Second, by unpacking the relationship between CSR and engagement, both positive and negative effects are uncovered. Results suggest that when CSR is embedded, it will more positively affect employees. Third, this is also the first study, to my knowledge, to empirically explore the relationship between CSR and authenticity, finding that CSR enables employees to show more of their whole selves at work. Finally, this study answers the call of Aguinis and Glavas (2012) for more microlevel research on CSR as well as models that include multiple mediators.

### PRIOR RESEARCH ON CSR AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Because the extant CSR literature is broad and diverse, which can lead to confusion regarding the definition of CSR (Peloza, 2009), I define CSR upfront. Based on the definition of Aguinis (2011) and adopted by others (e.g., Rupp, 2011; Rupp et al., 2011; Bauman and Skitka, 2012; El Akremi et al., 2015) CSR is defined as: "context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders' expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance" (Aguinis, 2011, p. 855). CSR is also relevant for a study on engaging the whole self because it is tied to one's self-concept—as Korschun et al. (2014, p. 24) explain, CSR "reflects a core belief rather than an attitude about a particular social issue."

Research on CSR and employee engagement is relatively nascent, but there are a few studies that establish that there is a positive relationship between CSR and employee engagement. Glavas and Piderit (2009) found that the effect on employee engagement resulting from positive employee perceptions of CSR was strengthened by importance of CSR to the employee. Caligiuri et al. (2013) also found a positive relationship between CSR and employee engagement; moreover, the authors found a three-way interaction of project meaningfulness, social support, and availability of resources on employee engagement. Glavas (2012) proposed that a reason for the positive relationship between CSR and engagement is that employees find greater meaningfulness and values congruence at work. Specifically, CSR allows for companies to go beyond formal values statements which tend to be words on paper to actually living out these values. This in turn sends signals to employees about the values of the company, which is in line with research that has found a positive relationship between CSR and anticipated values congruence for prospective employees (e.g., Jones et al., 2014). Moreover, CSR can also be a pathway for finding greater meaningfulness at work—in a review of the meaningfulness literature, Rosso et al. (2010) proposed CSR as a pathway through which employees can find meaning because they feel that they are contributing to the greater good. Moreover, Grant et al. (2008) found that the contribution to the greater good makes an employee feel good about themselves, thus improving their own self-concept resulting in greater organizational identification.

Although, there are only a few studies that explore the relationship between CSR and employee engagement, there are studies on related constructs that provide further evidence that there might be a relationship between CSR and engagement. In a study which built a nomological net of employee engagement, job

fpsyg-07-00796 May 31, 2016 Time: 15:49 # 2

<sup>1</sup>http://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/cd/4e/83b19cf8481392311929c7fbf315/r\_1363 .pdf

satisfaction and intrinsic motivation were two constructs found to be distinct but related to engagement. Prior CSR research has found a positive relationship between CSR and job satisfaction (e.g., Valentine and Fleischman, 2008; Glavas and Kelley, 2014). Other studies have found a positive relationship between CSR and intrinsic motivation (e.g., Grant, 2008).

In summary, the extant CSR research suggests that there is a relationship between CSR and employee engagement. However, in my review of the literature, I did not find any studies that have explored mediators of the relationship between CSR and employee engagement. In other words, we know that employees can be more engaged due to CSR, but we do not understand the underlying mechanisms.

### UNDERLYING MECHANISMS THAT EXPLAIN WHY CSR LEADS TO EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Because the focus of this study is on the underlying mechanisms of why employees are engaged, the underlying theory guiding the conceptual framework (see **Figure 1**) builds on engagement theory (e.g., Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010). In a review of engagement theory, Saks and Gruman (2014) outlined the different approaches to engagement of which they concluded that theory put forward by Kahn (1990) and later adopted by others (e.g., May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010) is the most comprehensive in terms of explaining the underlying psychological mechanisms of engagement. In brief, Kahn's (1990) approach to engagement is built on theories of the whole self and is based on three underlying mechanisms that influence engagement. The first is related to the content of the work in that employees are more engaged when they are able to do work that is true to themselves, which is referred to as authenticity in this study. Kahn (1990) referred to this content as work that is aligned with what is meaningful to a person. Rich et al. (2010) had a similar reasoning but focused more on values congruence finding that employees are more engaged when they feel that their personal values align with those of the organization. Second, the conditions of work are a key factor in that engagement is influenced by psychological safety, which represents the conditions that enable an employee to show up whole at work (Kahn, 1990). Rich et al. (2010) put forward that POS is the key factor that provides psychological safety. The third is related to traits of the individual which is psychological availability, which is more closely related to selfefficacy and whether an employee has the ability to carry out aspects of their whole selves at work (Rich et al., 2010). Of these three potential underlying mechanisms, the one not related to CSR is psychological availability because it is personal and not influenced by the organization—Rich et al. (2010) measured psychological availability as one's core self-evaluation (see Judge et al., 2003), which is a stable personality trait. On the other hand, organizations can influence the content (e.g., meaningful work aligned with one's values) and conditions of work (e.g., POS). In the following text, I put forward hypotheses based on how the content (i.e., authenticity) and conditions (e.g., POS) explain why and how CSR influences employee engagement.

### Perceived Organizational Support

Psychological safety is defined as the ability to show more of one's whole self without fear of negative consequences (Kahn, 1990).

Rich et al. (2010) put forward that POS is critical for psychological safety—in other words, the more that an organization supports an employee, it provides a safe environment in which the employee can be more engaged. When an employee does not believe that there is POS, employees tend to guard themselves, withdraw, and thus disengage (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010).

Corporate social responsibility could be an antecedent of POS. Numerous empirical studies have found a positive and significant relationship between CSR and POS (Glavas and Kelley, 2014; Shen and Benson, 2014; Ditlev-Simonsen, 2015). One reason is that in a broader stakeholder view of CSR, both external and internal stakeholders are cared for, so CSR will lead to POS. Shen and Benson (2014) found that companies high in CSR will also engage in socially responsible human resource management practices. This is also in line with the view that CSR is good management (Waddock and Graves, 1997) in that socially responsible companies are often well-managed companies who find that it benefits the company to treat all of its stakeholders well, including employees. Another reason why CSR is positively related to POS was offered by Cropanzano and Rupp (2008) the authors build on theories of third-party justice and social exchange theory to propose that when employees see that others are treated fairly, they will also expect to be treated fairly; therefore, employees have higher perceptions of organizational support.

Hypothesis 1. Perceived organizational support mediates the positive relationship between employee perceptions of the organization's CSR and employee engagement.

### Authenticity

In addition to POS, engagement theory puts forward that employees are more engaged when they perceive congruence with an organization's values and purpose because they feel as if they are bringing more of their whole selves to work (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010). In other words, many aspects of the whole self have been lived outside of work (e.g., with family, community, spiritual practices), but the more that work can allow for employees to show their real self, the more engaged they will be (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010). Turner (1976) defines authenticity as being able to show one's real self. In other words, authenticity is an antecedent to engagement.

Corporate social responsibility could be an antecedent of authenticity. Korschun et al. (2014) found that the positive effects of CSR are strengthened for employees to whom CSR is connected to their sense of self. Moreover, an important factor for authenticity is values congruence (Rich et al., 2010). Evans et al. (2011) found that employees with other-regarding values were able to find greater values congruence because CSR enabled them to live out these other-regarding values at work, resulting in higher levels of organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviors. Jones et al. (2014) found that prospective employees were more attracted to organizations higher in CSR because CSR signaled values that were important to them. Another important factor for authenticity is to be able to carry out work that is personally meaningful (Kahn, 1990). Glavas and Kelley (2014) found that because CSR is about serving a higher purpose, employees will find such work meaningful. This also furthers the work of Grant et al. (2008) who found that prosocial identity will mediate the relationship between CSR and affective organizational commitment. The authors put forward that for those employees for whom doing good onto others is important for their self-concept, CSR will be a way through which employees live out more of their whole selves at work.

Hypothesis 2. Authenticity mediates the positive relationship between employee perceptions of the organization's CSR and employee engagement.

### Extra-Role Involvement

In addition to POS and authenticity as potential mediators of the CSR—employee engagement relationship, extra-role behaviors such as volunteering could moderate this relationship. For example, Caligiuri et al. (2013) found that volunteering led to increased engagement and was strengthened by availability of resources and project meaningfulness—employees were able to live out more of their real selves through volunteering projects. Jones (2010) found that volunteering increased organizational identification mediated by organizational pride (i.e., seeing how one's work benefited the community made an employee feel proud of their organization); in turn employee organizational citizenship behaviors were increased. Muthuri et al. (2009) found that volunteering positively influenced employees due to improved social capital.

Although these studies suggest that there is a positive impact of volunteering on employees, what has not been studied as extensively is if too much extra-role behavior can have a negative impact. Aguinis and Glavas (2013) proposed that employees are more positively impacted by involvement in CSR when it is embedded into one's job; however, when CSR is peripheral (i.e., extra-role) it can have a negative impact on employees. Employees might perceive CSR as being disingenuous. Moreover, extra-role CSR might put pressure on employees who already have high job demands. For example, Grant (2012) found that if there is too much pressure for volunteering that it can have a negative impact on employees. This is what Pierce and Aguinis (2013) would describe as too much of a good thing effect.

Hypothesis 3. Extra-role involvement (i.e., volunteering) in CSR will moderate the positive relationship between authenticity and employee engagement, such that the relationship will be weakened by increased extra-role involvement in CSR.

## MATERIALS AND METHODS

### Ethics Statement

The study design and processes used to protect the interests and rights of the human subjects involved in this study was deemed as exempt by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Notre Dame.

### Setting and Sample

Participants were 15,184 employees from a large professional services firm in the USA. Survey responses were collected as

part of an annual workplace survey. The response rate was 73.3%. Due to legal restrictions by the company, I was not given access to individual demographic data. However, the company did disclose the overall demographics of the sample and 48.6% of participants were female and the mean tenure was 6.5 years, which was representative of general company demographics.

### Procedure

Because the primary goal was to analyze the data at the individual level, intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated in order to rule out office-level effects. ICC values ranged from 0.007 to 0.032. Despite the low ranges, I still included office as a control variable.

In addition, due to high correlations between variables, collinearity statistics were analyzed. The highest variance inflation factor (VIF) was 3.20, which is well below the recommended cutoff of 10 (Ryan, 1997).

To test the hypotheses, structural equation modeling was employed with Mplus Version 7 (Muthén and Muthén, 2012). The approach to mediation and moderated mediation analysis was done based on guidelines by Hayes (2013) and Stride (2015). Bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to obtain standard errors, estimates, and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals according to procedures recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008). The direct effect of CSR on the dependent variable (i.e., engagement) was also modeled.

### Measures

The measures were developed as part of the company's annual workplace survey and are adapted from the Great Place to Work Survey which has been used in prior research (see Fulmer et al., 2003). Each item, except extra-role involvement in CSR, was measured on a scale of 1 (rarely) to 5 (almost always). Internal consistency reliabilities (i.e., Cronbach's alphas) for each scale are presented in **Table 1**.

#### Independent Variable

The independent variable, CSR, was measured with five items such as "I believe [my company] makes a positive contribution to the communities in which it operates," and "[My company] demonstrates a clear commitment to its environmental initiatives."

### Dependent Variable

The dependent variable, employee engagement, was measured with four items. This scale has previously been used and validated (Block et al., in press) with the scale found to map onto the emotional dimension of the employee engagement scale of Rich et al. (2010). Items were such as "Overall, I would say that this is a great place to work," and "I rarely think about looking for a new job with another organization."

### Mediators

Authenticity was measured with four items such as "I can be myself at work," and "There is an emphasis on integrity here." POS was measured with four items such as "I get fair consideration for the best engagements or assignments," and "If I feel that I am treated unfairly, I am comfortable going to management to address my concerns."

### Moderator

Extra-role involvement in CSR was measured with the following item: "Please indicate the approximate number of hours you spend annually participating in firm-sponsored or personal community service/philanthropic activities." To clarify the terminology that the sample firm uses, firm-sponsored activities are a few strategic initiatives that are encouraged throughout the firm. Personal activities are those that are employee initiated but still conducted officially on behalf of the firm.

### Control Variables

I also controlled for other key variables that might influence employee attitudes such as satisfaction with leadership, pay satisfaction, and satisfaction with recognition. Satisfaction with leadership was measured with nine items such as "Management does an effective job of operating the business." Pay satisfaction was measured with three items such as "I am paid fairly for the work I do." Satisfaction with recognition was measured with two items such as "Management recognizes and shows appreciation for quality work and extra effort."

### RESULTS

### Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among the variables are presented in **Table 1**.

TABLE 1 | Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and study variable intercorrelations.


Scales are from 1 to 5. Coefficient (α) reliabilities are shown in the diagonal. <sup>∗</sup>p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.

### Hypothesis Testing

fpsyg-07-00796 May 31, 2016 Time: 15:49 # 6

The overall model showed acceptable fit. The root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.072 with 90% confidence intervals of 0.071 and 0.073. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) for the model was 0.041. The comparative fit index (CFI) for the model was 0.89 and the Tucker and Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.88.

**Table 2** reports indirect effects with unstandardized estimates, corresponding standard errors, and corresponding bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals. Hypothesis 1 was not supported. In other words, POS did not significantly mediate the relationship between CSR and employee engagement. Hypothesis 2 was supported. Authenticity positively and significantly mediated the relationship between CSR and employee engagement.

Hypothesis 3 was supported. Extra-role involvement in CSR weakened the relationship between authenticity and employee engagement. To test Hypothesis 3, I used the procedure for moderated mediation proposed by Hayes (2013) and Stride (2015) for Mplus. The interaction term (extra-role involvement in CSR) was significant (β = −0.042, p < 0.01) and predictors explained 67.5% of the variance of employee engagement. I operationalized high and low scores as 1 SD above and below the mean score. The estimates, standard errors, and 95% confidence intervals for the conditional indirect effects are presented in **Table 3**.

# Post hoc Analyses

### Common Method Bias

To control for common method bias, I first conducted a Harman's single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) with the one factor accounting for less than 50% of the variance. Because of the critique of the Harman's test, I further conducted a post hoc analysis using the marker variable technique (Lindell and Whitney, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2003), in which I partialed out the effect of a theoretically unrelated marker variable (market development). As expected, the fit was a bit worse, but still acceptable, compared to the baseline model (RMSEA = 0.084, 90% confidence intervals of 0.084 and 0.085; SRMR = 0.133; CFI = 0.85; TLI = 0.83), and all the path estimates from the previous model that were significant (i.e., Hypotheses 2 and 3), remained significant and in the same direction.

### Controlling for POS

Because Glavas and Kelley (2014) found that CSR affects work meaningfulness above and beyond POS, I also tested whether there is an indirect effect of CSR on engagement through authenticity that goes above and beyond the influence of POS. I tested the baseline model but instead of POS being a mediator, I controlled for POS. Authenticity still mediated the relationship between CSR and employee engagement (β = 1.443, p < 0.001).

TABLE 2 | Results of mediation tests predicting employee engagement: indirect effects of CSR through two mediators (perceived organizational support and authenticity).


BC 95% CI refers to the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval; Estimate refers to the effect estimate using 1,000 bootstrap samples; estimates with CIs that do not include zero are statistically significant and bolded; CSR, corporate social responsibility.

TABLE 3 | Results for test of conditional indirect effects of CSR-engagement through a mediator (authenticity) at specific values of the moderator (extra-role involvement in CSR): mean ± 1 standard deviation.


95% CI refers to the 95% confidence interval; estimate refers to the effect estimate using 1,000 bootstrap samples; estimates with CIs that do not include zero are statistically significant and bolded; CI refers to the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval.

### Reverse Causality

fpsyg-07-00796 May 31, 2016 Time: 15:49 # 7

Because it is possible that engaged employees might have more positive perceptions of the organization (e.g., CSR, authenticity, POS), reverse causality was analyzed. The same baseline model shown in **Figure 1** was tested in reverse with the exception of moderated mediation. None of the indirect paths were significant. The overall model showed similar fit to the baseline model in this study. The RMSEA was 0.073 with 90% confidence intervals of 0.072 and 0.074. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) for the model was 0.042. The CFI for the model was 0.89 and the TLI was 0.88. The indirect path from employee engagement to perceived CSR, mediated by POS was insignificant and negative (b = −0.012, p = 0.104). The indirect path from employee engagement to perceived CSR, mediated by authenticity was also insignificant (b = 0.026, p = 0.183).

### Main Effect of CSR and Engagement with No Mediators

Because many studies between CSR and employee outcomes have not included mediators, I tested the relationship using the baseline model (i.e., same controls and analysis) but without mediators. The relationship between CSR and engagement was found to be positive and significant (β = 0.837, p < 0.001). This is counter to the findings from the baseline model in this study (i.e., full model with mediators) in which the direct effect between CSR and engagement is not significant.

### DISCUSSION

In this study, I found a positive and significant relationship between employee perceptions of CSR and employee engagement, which was mediated by authenticity. The other mediator, POS, did not significantly mediate the CSR engagement relationship and the relationship was actually negative. Moreover, when POS was controlled for in the post hoc analyses, authenticity had an effect above and beyond that of POS on employee engagement. These findings suggest that perceived CSR has the strongest impact on employees when it allows for them to show their whole selves at work (i.e., authenticity). Moreover, when employees perceive that POS is related to CSR, it might have a negative impact. In addition, extra-role involvement in CSR was found to weaken the effect of authenticity on employee engagement. These results suggest that even if employees are positively affected by CSR, they prefer that CSR does not entail work above and beyond their own job.

### Theoretical Implications

Based on my review of the literature, this is the first study to explore underlying mechanisms between employee perceptions of CSR and engagement. Moreover, this is the first study to my knowledge that directly tested the relationship between CSR and authenticity—defined as the ability to bring one's whole self to work. As predicted by prior engagement theory (e.g., Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010), authenticity did mediate the relationship between CSR and engagement. But contrary to engagement theory (e.g., Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010) and prior CSR research on POS (e.g., Shen and Benson, 2014; Ditlev-Simonsen, 2015), POS was not found to be significantly related to engagement. This has important implications for CSR and organizational psychology because it goes beyond a top–down model in which the direct benefits of CSR to the employee (e.g., POS) predict how the employee will be affected. Instead, a bottom–up model in which employees can give more of their whole selves might have a stronger effect on employees. These findings also highlight the importance of going beyond studying the influence of external factors (e.g., POS) to studying how intra-individual factors (e.g., authenticity) influence how employees are affected by CSR.

Moreover, a bottom–up approach to CSR is one in which CSR is embedded in one's job. As the results of this study suggest, when CSR is extra-role it can have negative effects on employees. These findings have implications for CSR theory which has primarily built models based on the strategy and policies of an organization without taking into consideration if and how CSR is embedded into the jobs of employees (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013). By exploring the degree of CSR embeddedness, both positive and negative effects of CSR on employees can be uncovered.

Finally, this study contributes to gaps identified in a review of the CSR literature by Aguinis and Glavas (2012) who proposed that a more complete picture of CSR should be built in which the individual level of analysis is included. Prior CSR research has mostly been at the macro and institutional levels (Lee, 2008; Wood, 2010). In addition, this study includes multiple mediators, which are rarely studied in CSR at the individual level, but important to explore in order to understand how different mechanisms influence employees (Jones et al., 2014). Third, moderators are analyzed through moderated mediation, which addresses the need for exploring moderators of the CSR– employee outcomes relationship (Rupp et al., 2013). This has important theoretical implications because when effects of CSR on employees are aggregated to the macro level (i.e., without including mediators and moderators at the individual level of analysis), both positive and negative effects on employees are confounded. Perhaps this is why the macro CSR literature has led to inconclusive findings on whether CSR has a positive relationship with organization outcomes (Wood, 2010; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). By understanding why, how, and when employees are positively and negatively affected by CSR, more complete models of CSR can be built in which the positive effects of CSR can be disentangled.

### Managerial Implications

Mirroring theoretical implications, CSR should be embedded in practice as much as possible. Too often, CSR programs are put together by a department on the periphery of the company that emphasizes extra-role CSR behavior such as volunteering, recycling, and similar initiatives. Rather CSR could be part of one's job through two possible ways. CSR could be embedded throughout the organization (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013) such that it is part of an organization's strategy, products, and services. This is rare and at best, often organizations are somewhere on the path toward embedding CSR, but it is a journey that many organizations do embark on (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013). The other path, which can also be in parallel, is bottom up. Employees

can embed CSR in their own jobs through models of job crafting (for job crafting and CSR, see Sonenshein et al., 2014).

Second, the findings suggest that CSR should be more individualized and personal. Often companies have a unified strategy for implementing CSR organization-wide. However, if we take the findings of this study, then CSR is something that can really move people at a deep level. CSR can connect to what is most meaningful for a person and to their core values. Because each individual is different, CSR should be individualized. As a result, the firm also benefits as a part of the workforce can be re-energized. If even 13% of the workforce can be re-engaged, that is also a huge economic benefit to organizations. As the Gallup (2013) report found, which was conducted on 230,000 employees in 142 countries, only 13% of the current workforce is engaged. Engaging an additional 13% will double the amount of engaged employees. Moreover, Gallup (2013) calculated that due to population growth and GDP increase, there will be \$140 trillion in new customers. Moreover, the authors proposed that those companies that are able to engage their employees more will have a competitive advantage in this new marketplace.

Finally, all this goes without saying that perhaps the stakeholder that "wins" the most is the employee. If CSR is about improving the well-being of others, then enabling employees to find well-being through work, the activity that takes the most time out of many people's lives, is a CSR achievement in and of itself.

### Future Research and Limitations

The measure of extra-role involvement in CSR conflated both involvement in firm-initiated strategic corporate volunteering initiatives as well as employee-initiated corporate volunteering initiatives. Future research could disentangle these two in order to explore if initiatives proposed by employees might have positive effects due to its discretionary nature. For example, employees might be able to design initiatives that are more aligned to their whole self (e.g., values, perceptions of meaningful work).

In addition, the relationship between CSR and authenticity could be explored in much more depth. Because authenticity is intra-individual by its very nature, intra-individual factors could be explored. For example, it might be interesting to study whether CSR leads to authenticity because it influences values alignment, meaningfulness at work, and/or aligns with an employee's identity (e.g., prosocial identity)—and for whom. The latter could be studied by exploring the role of individual differences such as other orientation and conscientiousness.

Future research could also explore how the social exchange relationship between employees and the organization changes

### REFERENCES


when authenticity is introduced into the model. Although, this study did not explore social exchange theory, conceptual frameworks that include POS often build on those of social exchange theory (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). However, the starting point is often the organization and what it does to the employee, thus leading to a reciprocal exchange. It might be interesting to explore if this relationship changes when the starting point is the employee and they are enabled to show more of their whole selves at work.

Finally, there are limitations that apply to this study that can be overcome with future research. For example, the cross-sectional design of this study could be addressed with studies such as those that include other ratings, are experimental, and/or longitudinal. Moreover, because this study was on a single firm in the U.S., other studies could be conducted in multiple firms (of varying size), industries, and countries. For example, the findings in this study might differ in more blue collar employee populations. In addition, it would be interesting to compare the findings to data from firms in which CSR is highly embedded. Also, the measures used in this study were ones that were used as part of the organization's annual survey. Other established measures for the variables in the model could be tested as well, including collecting demographic variables, which were not disclosed due to legal privacy regulations.

### CONCLUSION

Engagement theory has primarily focused on the relationship between the individual and the organization. CSR theory has primarily focused on the relationship between the organization and society. By combining both, more complete multilevel models of not only CSR, but management in general can be built that are holistic in nature. As a result the individual benefits, the organization benefits, and society benefits.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

### ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I thank the editor and reviewers as well as Emily Block, Omer Farooq, Michael Mannor, and Marc Ohana for their invaluable help and collaboration.


of financial corporate philanthropy on employee attitudes. J. Bus. Ethics doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2930-8


fpsyg-07-00796 May 31, 2016 Time: 15:49 # 9

Stride, C. B. (2015). Mplus Code for the Mediation, Moderation, and Moderated Mediation Model Templates from Andrew Hayes' PROCESS Analysis Examples. Available at: http://www.offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/FIO/mplusmedmod.htm

Time (2005). Get happy. Time A3–A9.

fpsyg-07-00796 May 31, 2016 Time: 15:49 # 10


**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Glavas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# How Do Internal and External CSR Affect Employees' Organizational Identification? A Perspective from the Group Engagement Model

Imran Hameed<sup>1</sup> \*, Zahid Riaz <sup>2</sup> , Ghulam A. Arain<sup>3</sup> and Omer Farooq<sup>4</sup>

*<sup>1</sup> Lahore Business School, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan, <sup>2</sup> Faculty of Business Administration, Lahore School of Economics, Lahore, Pakistan, <sup>3</sup> Department of Human Resources, Effat College of Business, Effat University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, <sup>4</sup> Kedge Business School, Marseille, France*

The literature examines the impact of firms' corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on employees' organizational identification without considering that such activities tend to have different targets. This study explores how perceived *external* CSR (efforts directed toward external stakeholders) and perceived *internal* CSR (efforts directed toward employees) activities influence employees' organizational identification. In so doing, it examines the alternative underlying mechanisms through which perceived external and internal CSR activities build employees' identification. Applying the taxonomy prescribed by the group engagement model, the study argues that the effects of perceived external and internal CSR flow through two competing mechanisms: perceived external prestige and perceived internal respect, respectively. Further, it is suggested that calling orientation (how employees see their work contributions) moderates the effects induced by these alternative forms of CSR. The model draws on survey data collected from a sample of 414 employees across five large multinationals in Pakistan. The results obtained using structural equation modeling support these hypotheses, reinforcing the notion that internal and external CSR operate through different mediating mechanisms and more interestingly employees' calling orientation moderates these relationships to a significant degree. Theoretical contributions and practical implications of results are discussed in detail.

*Edited by:*

*David Allen Jones, University of Vermont, USA*

#### *Reviewed by:*

*Matthew Christopher Davis, University of Leeds, UK Flore Bridoux, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands*

> *\*Correspondence: Imran Hameed imran.hameed@lbs.uol.edu.pk*

### *Specialty section:*

*This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology*

*Received: 22 December 2015 Accepted: 10 May 2016 Published: 30 May 2016*

#### *Citation:*

*Hameed I, Riaz Z, Arain GA and Farooq O (2016) How Do Internal and External CSR Affect Employees' Organizational Identification? A Perspective from the Group Engagement Model. Front. Psychol. 7:788. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00788* Keywords: CSR, organizational identification, group engagement model, respect, prestige

## INTRODUCTION

The widespread growth of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices makes it important to determine how they influence different stakeholders such as employees, consumers, investors, suppliers, and the government (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). Among these groups, employees are vital to any discussion of the origins and consequences of CSR (Aguilera et al., 2007). However, most micro CSR research focuses on external stakeholders such as consumers and investors (Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006; Sen et al., 2006), neglecting employees as a key and integral stakeholder group (Larson et al., 2008). Although some recent studies assess the impact of firms' CSR activities on employees' attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Brammer et al., 2007; Turker, 2009a; Mueller et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2012), most of these studies have focused on the direct relationship between the two rather than on the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions through which CSR influences employee outcomes. This study attempts to address this gap.

Most micro CSR studies focus on organizational identification as a significant CSR outcome because it is a fundamental construct that predicts relevant behaviors (Albert et al., 2000). For instance, Collier and Esteban (2007), Farooq M. et al. (2014); Farooq O. et al. (2014), and Rodrigo and Arenas (2008) demonstrate the positive relationship between CSR and organizational identification. While these studies contribute greatly to our understanding of how CSR affects employees' identification, most of them suggest there is a direct link between CSR and organizational identification. Kim et al. (2010), Jones (2010), and De Roeck and Delobbe (2012) demonstrate this link through the mediation of perceived prestige or pride. Conversely, they do not consider whether a number of underlying mechanisms induced by different types of CSR activities influence organizational identification.

We argue that CSR generates a number of mediators that influence organizational identification; this is because CSR comprises a variety of discretionary actions taken by the firm, targeting different stakeholder groups. To better understand how different kinds of CSR influence employees' identification, we differentiate between internal and external CSR activities (Cornelius et al., 2008; Jones and Rupp, 2016) in this context and suggest different underlying mechanisms through which CSR fosters identification.

Scholars have suggested that the impact of CSR on employee outcomes is sensitive to how an individual is oriented (e.g., Rupp et al., 2013a,b; Bridoux et al., 2016). Particularly, researchers propose that employees' perception about CSR and its subsequent outcomes are sensitive to their calling orientation (e.g., Glavas and Godwin, 2013), that is, the extent to which employees see their work as a "calling" rather than merely a "job." Thus, the study also explores how employees' calling orientation can strengthen or weaken the process by which perceived internal and external CSR lead to employees' organizational identification.

We examine how weak and strong calling orientations moderate the effects of perceived external and internal CSR on identification via perceived external prestige and perceived internal respect, respectively. Using social identity theory, we propose that CSR actions focusing on external stakeholders enhance perceived external prestige whereas those focusing on employees increase perceived internal respect. Perceived external prestige and perceived internal respect encourage employees to identify with their socially responsible organization. Furthermore, we suggest that the use of mechanisms based on perceived external prestige and/or perceived internal respect to build organizational identification depend, in turn, on employees' calling orientation.

Finally, given that the bulk of CSR research concentrates on developed countries (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Jones et al., 2014), this study shifts the focus by presenting data from South Asia, a developing region-Pakistan. This is in response to scholars who have called for CSR research on other regions of the world (Rupp et al., 2013a). Accordingly, our model relies on selfreported data from a sample of 414 employees working across five large multinationals in Pakistan.

The study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it examines how perceived internal and external CSR actions influence employees' organizational identification. In so doing, the study shows how alternative underlying mechanisms perceived external prestige and perceived internal respect connect components of CSR and organizational identification. This study responds to Aguinis and Glavas (2012), who have emphasized the need to understand such mechanisms in relation to employee outcomes. Exploring these alternative mediation mechanisms could also help strengthen firms' capacity for managing the impact of CSR initiatives (Farooq O. et al., 2014).

Second, the study contributes to both theory and practice by closely gauging how employees perceive and react to CSR. There is no "best way" of carrying out CSR and the difference in employees' calling orientation plays an important role in evaluating such activities. This implies that managers must take into account the differential impact of CSR components on employees in order to design effective CSR strategies. Finally, in suggesting that this impact depends on employees' calling orientation, this study shows how calling orientation acts as a boundary condition of the relationship between perceived CSR and its outcomes (Colquitt and George, 2011).

### CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

CSR is a set of firm's initiatives that go beyond the notion of profit-making or compliance with the law (McGuire, 1963; Davis, 1973; McWilliams et al., 2006; Aguilera et al., 2007; De Roeck et al., 2014). It entails promoting good causes, instituting good practices, and carrying out philanthropy, all of which highlight a firm's ethical position (Carroll, 1979; Kotler and Lee, 2005). These elements are vital to building a more productive relationship with the firm's stakeholders (Waddock and Smith, 2000; Bhattacharya et al., 2009).

Scholars distinguish between a firm's social initiatives in terms of internal CSR and external CSR, which are directed at internal and external stakeholders, respectively (Verdeyen et al., 2004; Werther and Chandler, 2010; El Akremi et al., 2015). Internal CSR denotes the policy and practices of an organization that are related to the psychological and physiological well-being of its employees (Verdeyen et al., 2004; Brammer et al., 2007; Turker, 2009b; Shen and Jiuhua Zhu, 2011). These include respect for human rights, employee health and safety, worklife balance, employee training, equal opportunity, and diversity (Vuontisjärvi, 2006; Turker, 2009a; Gond et al., 2011; Shen and Jiuhua Zhu, 2011). External CSR relates to environmental and social practices that help to strengthen the firm's legitimacy and reputation among its external stakeholders (Carroll, 1979; Brammer et al., 2007). External CSR activities include volunteerism, cause-related marketing, corporate philanthropy, and environmental and wildlife protection (Brammer et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2008; Cornelius et al., 2008).

Although the literature differentiates between internal and external CSR, most micro CSR research examining the impact of CSR on employees' attitudes and behaviors has rarely tested the differential effects and underlying mechanisms associated with these two types of CSR practices (e.g., Brammer et al., 2007; Mueller et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2012). This distinction is important from an employee perspective because perceived internal CSR appears to be self-focused whereas perceived external CSR appears to be others-focused. These two facets of CSR can, therefore, affect employees' related attitudes and behaviors differently. This study explores how internal and external CSR produce different pathways through which CSR builds identification.

Recent studies in micro CSR also suggest that CSR affects employees' organizational identification (Glavas and Godwin, 2013, e.g., Farooq M. et al., 2014; Farooq O. et al., 2014; El Akremi et al., 2015). Employees associate themselves strongly with their organization when it is involved in social welfare activities (Smidts et al., 2001; Glavas and Godwin, 2013). Jones (2010) finds that employees who received support from their organization when carrying out community services were more likely to feel strongly attached to the organization. Jones et al. (2014) argue that firms engaged in social wellbeing activities earn a positive image and are better able to attract suitable employees. In a field experiment on CSR and stakeholder relationships, Sen et al. (2006) find that both external as well as internal stakeholders identify better with an organization once they become aware of its CSR activities. However, few studies have looked at how and why specific CSR practices influence identification, this study attempts to fill this gap.

Organizational identification is a specific form of social identification derived from social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1985; Ashforth and Mael, 1989) and self-categorization theory (Haslam and Ellemers, 2005). It is conceptualized as "a perceived oneness with an organization and the experience of the organization's successes and failures as one's own" (Mael and Ashforth, 1992, p. 103). The research indicates that organizational identification is an important determinant of a firm's overall effectiveness (e.g., Pratt, 1998). It has a positive impact on several organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction (Van Dick et al., 2004a), organizational citizenship behavior (Bartel, 2001; Tyler and Blader, 2003) and readiness for change (Hameed et al., 2013), and is negatively related to turnover intention (Mael and Ashforth, 1995). According to Ellemers et al. (2003) and Van Dick et al. (2004b), social identity theory makes the following key assumptions: (i) individuals strive to achieve positive self-esteem, (ii) some part of individuals' self-esteem is based on their social identity derived from group membership, and (iii) in order to evaluate and maintain a positive social identity, a group comparison is required with the relevant out-groups. In order for social identity theory assumptions to be applicable, a minimum level of group identification should exist along with salient membership of the group (Van Dick, 2001).

Social identification also assumes that a person's self-concept consists of two components: his or her own identity and a large number of social identities (Abrams and Hogg, 1988). In other words, it refers to the process by which individuals categorize themselves into several social groups to reinforce their self-esteem and self-concept (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Hogg and Terry, 2000; Terry and Hogg, 2001). The trigger for social identification, therefore, is individuals' need for self-enhancement, for which purpose they assign themselves to well regarded, attractive and distinctive social groups (Terry and Hogg, 2001).

As discussed earlier, organizational identification allows employees to develop a strong, enduring relationship (developing a feeling of oneness) with their organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Dutton et al. (1994) explain that organizational identification is strongest when (i) the individual's alternative identities are less salient than his/her identity as an organizational member, and (ii) the individual's self-concept and perceived organizational identity have many common attributes. Thus, by investing in CSR activities with the objective of benefiting the community as well as its own employees, an organization enhances employees' identification: they see the organization as being socially responsible and belonging to it meets their own need to enhance their self-esteem. CSR activities also give employees an opportunity to make favorable social comparisons with other organizations, again, in the attempt to improve their self-esteem (Bartel, 2001).

Earlier studies exploring the CSR-organizational identification relationship have not fully explored the mechanism through which the impact of internal and external CSR translates into organizational identification. Both internal and external CSR activities target different stakeholder groups. Based on the group engagement model (Tyler and Blader, 2003), we propose separate mediating mechanisms for internal and external CSR, i.e., perceived internal respect and perceived external prestige, respectively (these are also called status evaluations).

The group engagement model is an appropriate framework because it discusses two types of antecedents of organizational identification (internal and external evaluations), which match our conceptualization of internal and external CSR. Perceived external prestige is individuals' evaluation of their organization's social status (external focus), while perceived internal respect is their evaluation of their own status within the organization (internal focus). The group engagement model suggests that these status evaluations have separate antecedents (Fuller et al., 2006) that are important in gauging employees' relationship with their organization (Tyler and Blader, 2003).

Here, we propose that perceived external CSR contributes to the firm's perceived external prestige whereas perceived internal CSR contributes to employees' perceived internal respect. Further, employees' assessment of CSR activities will vary according to their personal values and work orientation. Employees who see their work as a calling—finding it most meaningful if it has a broader impact or fulfills a greater purpose—will put greater importance on CSR activities of organization. Thus, the current study proposes that the effect of perceived CSR activities on the employees' perception of external prestige and internal respect is moderated by their calling orientation.

### Mediating Role of Perceived External Prestige

Although the literature assumes implicitly that employees' organizational identification and underlying self-enhancement process justifies the way in which CSR affects employee outcomes, most studies have not explored this underlying self-enhancement mechanism. The few exceptions to this (e.g., Jones, 2010) argue that employees satisfy their need for self-esteem by taking pride in belonging to a socially well-regarded organization, which results in favorable attitudes toward the organization. That said, the mediation mechanism that translates the effect of CSR initiatives into favorable attitudes remains unclear (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Jones, 2010).

The group engagement model provides a sound basis for understanding this psychological mechanism. As discussed above, perceived external prestige and perceived internal respect are two important determinants of employee–organization identification. Perceived external prestige is a commonly used determinant of organizational identification, indicating employees' perception of how outsiders view their organization. Perceived internal respect is a relatively new concept and refers to employees' perception of how their organization treats them.

Perceived external prestige is important because it enhances employees' self-concept and self-worth (Mael and Ashforth, 1992), especially when they believe that outsiders see their organization as being distinctive (Dutton et al., 1994). Proponents of social identity theory (e.g., Van Dick, 2001; Edwards, 2005) argue that individuals prefer being part of prestigious groups because it strengthens their self-esteem. In an organizational context, the firm's external prestige increases its employees' self-esteem as well as their organizational identification (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Benkhoff, 1997).

Employees identify strongly with companies they perceive as being socially responsible (e.g., Farooq M. et al., 2014; Farooq O. et al., 2014; El Akremi et al., 2015). However, instead of focusing on how external CSR directly affects organizational identification, we argue that such activities are means of enhancing the perceived external prestige of an organization (Kim et al., 2010). According to Pratt (1998), employees will develop a positive social image of their organization if it is involved with a social cause. Community development and philanthropy enhance outsiders' perception of the firm (Fryxell and Jia, 1994; Brammer and Millington, 2005). In particular, external CSR activities reflect characteristics that society tends to recognize and value. This is expected to induce the perception of external prestige, which people evaluate through visible, recognizable symbols, or attributes within that particular society (March and Simon, 1958).

Employees' perception of external prestige stems from external cues such as word of mouth, publicity, and other media (Smidts et al., 2001). Based on these, employees will compare the distinctive, central and enduring practices of their organization with those of other firms when assessing relative prestige (Dutton et al., 1994; Lee et al., 2008). We argue that organizations considered socially responsible have high perceived external prestige in the eyes of their employees, which subsequently affects the latter's organizational identification. Based on the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:

**Hypothesis 1:** Perceived external prestige mediates the relationship between external CSR and organizational identification.

## Mediating Role of Perceived Internal Respect

Until the group engagement model (Tyler and Blader, 2003) emerged, the bulk of organizational identification research focused primarily on employees' perception of what others thought of their organization, without differentiating between external prestige and internal respect. Tyler (1999) defines internal respect as individuals' perception that "I am valued by my organization" (p. 219). Being valued thus helps employees to develop a stronger sense of organizational identification insofar as perceived internal respect fulfills their need for selfenhancement (Fuller et al., 2006).

Employees evaluate perceived internal respect through certain cues from the organization, such as its concern for employee health, safety, and well-being, and the extent to which they can participate in decision making. These cues signal to employees that they are central to the organization, and are valued and respected (Tyler and Blader, 2002). Their perception of respect is related to the reputational self and fulfills their need to maintain a positive personal identity (Tyler and Blader, 2002). It is imperative to note that internal respect in this study is evaluated through individuals' "feelings of inclusion or membership in the group and via internal standards of judgment" (Tyler and Blader, 2002, p. 830), also called autonomous judgments. In other words, employees' primary concern is whether they are members in good standing and not whether they are in better standing than their colleagues (Tyler and Blader, 2002).

Internal CSR initiatives of organization can give employees the necessary cues that it cares about them (Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008). We suggest that internal CSR, which focuses on employees' welfare and well-being, sends cues that the organization is benevolent and values its employees. This generates perceived internal respect. This proposition has tangential support from Fuller et al. (2006) who show that human resource practices such as opportunities for extensive training, recognition, and organizational justice are predictors of perceived internal status. Thus, internal CSR initiatives seen to target employees as the beneficiaries have a positive impact on employees' perceived respect and increase their organizational identification. We hypothesize the following:

**Hypothesis 2:** Perceived internal respect mediates the relationship between internal CSR and organizational identification.

## Moderating Role of Employees' Calling Orientation

The literature argues that individual perceptions are affected by different stimuli, which applies equally to perceived CSR (c.f. Glavas and Godwin, 2013). Studies suggest that employees have varying work orientations (c.f. Wrzesniewski et al., 1997; Glavas and Godwin, 2013, p. 20). Some see their work as merely a job or means of getting paid, others may see it in terms of good career prospects and a way to express themselves (e.g., by seeking promotion), and still others might see work as giving their lives meaning or a greater purpose. Some employees might be driven by different combinations of all three (Wrzesniewski, 2003; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003), although for few calling orientation may well be the most important (Glavas and Godwin, 2013).

The multidimensional concept of employees' calling orientation often includes workplace spirituality (Clark et al., 2007), identity (Britt et al., 2001), intrinsic work orientation, and work values (Roberson, 1990). Including these components in calling orientation pushes it closer to a moral perspective, i.e., deontic justice theory, which suggests that people are concerned about justice because unfair treatment violates ethical and moral norms (Folger, 1998, 2001). This perspective also suggests that people react to first-party justice (the treatment they receive—internal CSR) as well as to third-party justice (the treatment of others—external CSR) (Skarlicki and Kulik, 2005). In this context, "others" denotes coworkers (Skarlicki et al., 1998). However, researchers argue that this phenomenon can be extended to CSR targeting external stakeholders (Rupp et al., 2006). In addition, Rupp et al. (2013a, p. 899) argue that employees are likely to see the positive effects of CSR only "if social responsibility was something that the employee valued a priori and thus a deontic or morality-based value structure is still implied."

Building on these arguments, employees with a higher level of calling orientation are more likely to see their job as a means of achieving a greater purpose due to the firm's perceived external CSR activities (Besharov, 2008) (third-party justice). In other words, the perceived external CSR persuades these employees that their firm has a deontic perspective because it is attempting to meet moral and ethical norms. Based on their inclination toward calling orientation, employees perceive that outsiders give greater weight to external CSR activities and consider their organization to be socially prestigious. This ultimately develops into high perceived external prestige. Thus, employees with a higher calling orientation are likely to have a biased assessment of how important external CSR is to others (Rosso et al., 2010).

Similarly, employees with a higher level of calling orientation are likely to be biased when gauging how important internal CSR (first-party justice) is to them. Organizations have a moral or ethical obligation to help workers feel that their work is meaningful (Michaelson, 2005); membership of an organization with a deontic perspective of justice gives their work positive meaning. The organization's perceived internal CSR activities imply that it is fulfilling moral and ethical norms vis-à-vis its internal stakeholders. In response, these employees are more likely to perceive stronger impact of internal CSR on internal respect than employees with a lower calling orientation.

Taken together, employees with a higher calling orientation are expected to care more about their firm's CSR initiatives and will be more affected by perceptions of internal and external CSR as they relate to internal/external image (Rosso et al., 2010; Glavas and Godwin, 2013). Hence, the mediating relationships proposed in hypotheses 1 and 2 are conditional and the strength of the relationship depends on employees' calling orientation (see **Figure 1**). We put forward the following:

**Hypothesis 3:** The relationship between external CSR and perceived external prestige is moderated by employees' calling orientation such that the stronger the calling orientation, the stronger will be the relationship and vice versa.

**Hypothesis 4**: The relationship between internal CSR and perceived internal respect is moderated by employees' calling orientation such that the stronger the calling orientation, the stronger will be the relationship and vice versa.

## METHODS

### Procedure and Sample

A cross-sectional survey (self-administered questionnaire) was developed to collect data for the study. Several members of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan were interviewed in order to identify which firms the survey should include. Based on these interviews, we selected five multinational corporations that run vigorous, high-profile CSR campaigns, making them visible to the public (external stakeholders). We used interviews for this purpose because there is no published data available on Pakistan in the context of this study. Having asked each firm's human resources department for permission to administer the survey, we sent them a copy of the questionnaire (in English), accompanied by a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and assuring all respondents they would remain anonymous. We also ensured that the questionnaire was administered without any direct involvement by the human resources department.

We focused on banking and telecommunication organizations, specifically on companies engaged in multiple CSR initiatives for the local community. For instance, one large multinational corporation participating in this survey has provided services and contributed relief funds in response to natural and manmade disasters such as the Awaraan earthquake, the internally displaced persons crisis and the famine in Tharparkar. Other companies have provided drinking water filtration and sanitation facilities, built and equipped IT labs at educational institutions, and introduced online teachinglearning content and e-learning to improve the quality of education.

A total of 550 questionnaires were distributed, of which 430 were returned and 414 analyzed. All the respondents were Pakistani citizens and, on average, 33 years old (SD = 9.12). The majority were male (85%), similar to several other studies in the field (e.g., Kim et al., 2010). Most respondents (66%) had at least a Master's degree and had worked at the organization for 7 years, on average (SD = 7.14). Respondents held a variety of positions, including assistant manager (48.2%), manager (21.4%), and technical officer (19.5%).

### Measures

All measures—except the control variables—were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5). The five-item scale adapted from Mael and Ashforth (1992) was used to measure perceived external prestige. The sample item was "People in my community think highly of my organization." The six-item scale used by Blader and Tyler (2009), based on Tyler et al. (1996), was used to measure perceived internal respect, where the sample item was "Managers think that I have valuable insights and ideas." Organizational identification was measured on a five-item scale used by Blader

and Tyler (2009), adapted from Mael and Ashforth (1992), where the sample item was "When I talk about the organization, I usually say 'we' rather than 'they'."

Perceived internal and external CSR were measured on a 12 item scale adapted from (Turker, 2009b) 17-item CSR scale, which measures four dimensions<sup>1</sup> . Five of the 12 items measured internal CSR (i.e., CSR to employees), where the sample item was "Our company supports employees who want to acquire additional education." The remaining seven items measured external CSR (i.e., CSR to social and nonsocial stakeholders), where the sample item was "Our company contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of the society." Finally, employees' calling orientation was measured on a three-item scale from Steger et al. (2012), where the original sample item was "I know my work makes a positive difference in the world."

Control variables—in this case, age, gender and experience were included in survey to rule out other possible explanations for any significant relationships. Variables such as age and gender can have a significant impact on organizational identification at the individual level (Riketta, 2005).

### Data Analysis

The data was analyzed and the hypotheses tested using SPSS 21 and AMOS 21. The data screening stage incorporated missing value analysis, multivariate outliers, normality, descriptive statistics, multicollinearity, homoscedasticity and correlation analyses. **Table 1** summarizes the descriptive statistics, indicating moderate correlation among the variables. None of the control variables are significantly correlated with any of the dependent variables. Petersitzke (2009) suggests using only the control variables significantly correlated with the dependent variable because using non-significant terms can affect the coefficient values for significant terms in regression model. Accordingly, we have not included the control variables in the final analysis.

Construct validity was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 21. In order to assess the model's goodness of fit, we use the following indices (Byrne, 2001): the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), CMIN/df and the root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). According to Hair et al. (2010) and Kline (2011), a good model fit should have CFI and TLI values above 0.90 and a RMSEA score below 0.08. The results of the first model (applied to all items of six factors) show relatively poor fit statistics (CMIN/df = 2.29, CFI = 0.89, TLI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.05). The second model was tested after removing four low-factor loading items (one for calling orientation, one for internal respect and two for external CSR)<sup>2</sup> . In this case, the model fit statistics improve significantly, reaching acceptable levels (CMIN/df = 1.43, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.03).

Two additional models (Bentler and Bonett, 1980) are analyzed to assess the appropriateness of the proposed measurement model. The first alternative model is tested

<sup>1</sup>We used items related to two dimensions which were CSR towards social and nonsocial stakeholders, and CSR toward employees. As per the conceptualization of CSR i.e., CSR is a set of initiatives of an organization that go beyond the notion of profit-making or compliance with the law (McGuire, 1963; Davis, 1973; McWilliams et al., 2006; Aguilera et al., 2007; De Roeck et al., 2014), we have excluded CSR directed toward customers and government.

<sup>2</sup>The removed items were as follows: Perceived external CSR (i) "Our company encourages its employees to participate in voluntary activities" and (ii) "Our company supports nongovernmental organizations working in problematic areas." Perceived internal respect (i) "Managers think it would be difficult to replace me." Calling orientation (i) "My work really makes no difference to the world."

#### TABLE 1 | Descriptive statistics.


*N* = *414; \*p* < *0.05; \*\*p* < *0.01.*

*<sup>a</sup>1* = *male; 2* = *female.*

*<sup>b</sup>Years of work experience.*

#### TABLE 2 | Reliability and validity.


*N* = *414; CR, Composite Reliability; AVE, Average variance extracted; MSV, Maximum Shared Variance; ASV, Average Shared variance.*

by loading all the items on a single factor. The results indicate a poor fit (CMIN/df = 6.72, CFI = 0.77, TLI = 0.62, RMSEA = 0.18). In the second alternative model, we introduce a four-factor solution in which the two status evaluations are merged into one, and internal and external CSR are combined. These results also indicate a poor fit to the data (CMIN/df = 5.82, CFI = 0.79, TLI = 0.74, RMSEA = 0.11). Thus, the results of the six-factor model show a superior fit<sup>3</sup> compared to the alternative models.

We follow Hair et al. (2010) in measuring the discriminant and convergent validities of all the scales. To establish convergent validity, the AVE > 0.50; to establish reliability, the CR > 0.70; and to establish discriminant validity, MSV < AVE and ASV < AVE. **Table 2** shows that all the measures used are reliable and valid and meet these criteria. The exceptions are perceived internal CSR and perceived external CSR, which show low convergent validity.

The common latent factor test is conducted in structural equation modeling to gauge the common method variance of the data. This is more robust than the commonly used Harman's single-factor test. The results reveal a shared variance of 22% among all items, implying that the data has no major common method variance issue.

### RESULTS

The structural regression model is tested using AMOS 21; the multiple regression analysis employs SPSS 21. The results of structural regression model show a good fit to the data (CMIN/df = 1.65; RMSEA = 0.04, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96). Hypothesis 1 concerns the mediating effect of perceived external prestige between external CSR and organizational identification. However, the model is characterized by multi-mediation, which AMOS 21 cannot test directly. For this purpose, we use the phantom model technique (Macho and Ledermann, 2011) along with 5000 bootstrapping samples (Preacher and Hayes, 2008), which enables us to determine the specific indirect effects and their significance levels.

The results of structural regression model show that external CSR has a positive relationship with perceived external prestige (unstandardized estimate = 0.51, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001) and perceived external prestige has a positive impact on organizational identification (unstandardized estimate = 0.36, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001). The results also indicate that external CSR does not have a significant effect on organizational identification (unstandardized estimate = 0.13, SE = 0.10, p > 0.05). The phantom model technique reveals that external CSR has a significant and positive indirect effect on organizational identification through perceived external prestige (unstandardized estimate = 0.18, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001). The results show that perceived external prestige fully mediates the relationship between external CSR and organizational identification as the direct effect of external CSR on organizational identification is insignificant, thus supporting Hypothesis 1 (see **Table 3**).

Hypothesis 2 concerns the mediating effect of perceived internal respect between internal CSR and organizational identification. Using the same method outlined above for Hypothesis 1, the results of structural regression model show that internal CSR has a positive relationship with perceived internal respect (unstandardized estimate = 0.51, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001) and perceived internal respect has a positive effect on organizational identification (unstandardized estimate = 0.20, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01). Internal CSR does not have a significant

<sup>3</sup>The chi-square test of difference was not applied because the model's superiority was evident from the fit indices.

#### TABLE 3 | Mediation analysis results.


*BC, Biased Corrected (5000 bootstrapping samples).*

*\*p* < *0.05; \*\*\*p* < *0.001.*

effect on organizational identification (unstandardized estimate = −0.02, SE = 0.11, p > 0.05). The phantom model technique shows that internal CSR has a significant and positive indirect effect on organizational identification through perceived internal respect (unstandardized estimate = 0.10, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05). The results show that perceived internal respect fully mediates the relationship between internal CSR and organizational identification as the direct effect of internal CSR on organizational identification is insignificant. These results provide support for Hypothesis 2 (see **Table 3**).

In post hoc analysis, we simultaneously test the path from external CSR to organizational identification via perceived internal respect, and from internal CSR to organizational identification via perceived external prestige. The results reveal that external CSR affects organizational identification via prestige, whereas internal CSR affects organizational identification via both mechanisms, i.e., prestige and respect (unstandardized estimate = 0.08, SE = 0.06, p < 0.01). Although we have not hypothesized these relationships in the study, this result offers some interesting insight into the impact of internal CSR: while internal CSR does not affect organizational identification directly, it does affect employee identification indirectly via prestige and respect (this path is shown by the dotted line in **Figure 1**).

In order to test hypotheses 3 and 4, we use the recently developed PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013) with 5000 bootstrap samples as recommended by (MacKinnon et al., 2012). This macro is both useful and appropriate for calculating the interaction effects (Hayes, 2013). Hypothesis 3 states that employees' calling orientation moderates the positive relationship between external CSR and perceived external prestige, such that the higher the calling orientation, the stronger will be the relationship, and vice versa. **Table 4** shows that the interaction term (external CSR × calling orientation) has a significant effect on perceived external prestige. This implies that the effect of external CSR on perceived external prestige increases in tandem with calling orientation. The results, therefore, support the Hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4 states that calling orientation moderates the positive relationship between internal CSR and perceived internal respect, such that the higher the calling orientation, the stronger will be the relationship, and vice versa. **Table 4** shows that the interaction term (internal CSR × calling orientation) has a significant effect on perceived internal respect. The effect of internal CSR on perceived internal respect increases with higher levels of calling orientation. These results also support the Hypothesis.

**Figures 2**, **3** illustrate these relationships. The results of the simple slope test in **Table 5** show that the impact of perceived external CSR on perceived external prestige varies significantly at lower and higher levels of calling orientation. At a lower calling orientation, the unstandardized estimate is 0.15 with p < 0.01, whereas at a higher calling orientation, the unstandardized estimate is 0.34 with p < 0.001. Similarly, in the case of perceived internal respect, the effect of perceived internal CSR at a lower calling orientation yields an unstandardized estimate of 0.16 with p < 0.001. At a higher calling orientation, the unstandardized estimate is 0.29 with p < 0.001.

### DISCUSSION

This study has explored the mechanisms through which perceived internal and external CSR affect the extent to which employees identify with their organization. We have also examined how employees' calling orientation moderates the relationship between CSR perceptions and two different types of status evaluations, i.e., perceived external prestige and perceived internal respect. While previous research has established the relationship between CSR perceptions and organizational identification (e.g., Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008), the underlying processes are not well understood. This study contributes to the literature by exploring the different pathways through which external and internal CSR build employees' identification.

### Mediation of Perceived External Prestige between External CSR and Identification

The results of the empirical analysis reveal that perceived external prestige fully mediates the relationship between perceived external CSR and organizational identification. The direct effect of perceived external CSR on organizational identification becomes insignificant in the presence of perceived external prestige. The perception of external CSR affects perceived external prestige, which subsequently has a positive impact on organizational identification.

These results extend previous findings on the direct effect of CSR on identification (Collier and Esteban, 2007; Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008; Farooq O. et al., 2014) by showing how this effect occurs. The findings also indicate that employees are concerned with organizational activities that support external stakeholders, which they see as an important part of developing a positive social image (Rego et al., 2010). According to social identity theory, the aim of enhancing one's self-esteem is achieved by members of a group (the organization) if that group is considered highly prestigious by the out-group (in this case, society). This aim compels employees to identify with their organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Thus, it is through perceived external

#### TABLE 4 | Moderation hypotheses results.


*BC, Biased Corrected (5000 bootstrapping samples); N* = *414; \*p* < *0.05; \*\*p* < *0.01; \*\*\*p* < *0.001.*

prestige that the effects of external CSR translate into employees' identification with their organization.

### Mediation of Perceived Internal Respect between Internal CSR and Identification

The results support the hypothesis that perceived internal respect mediates the relationship between perceived internal CSR and organizational identification. In the presence of perceived internal respect, the effect of internal CSR on organizational identification is insignificant. This implies that, if employees are treated well in the workplace—in the form of training opportunities, respect for human rights, work-life balance,

#### TABLE 5 | Simple slope test.


health and safety—then this is likely to enhance their selfimage. Consequently, internal CSR compels employees to identify with the organization (Tyler and Blader, 2003). Our data analysis supports the theoretical rationale for using the group engagement model to enhance our understanding of the psychological processes underlying the relationship between CSR and organizational identification.

Another important insight concerns the insignificant total effect of internal CSR on organizational identification. The corresponding post hoc analysis highlights that perceived internal CSR does not contribute directly to employees' organizational identification. Farooq O. et al. (2014) give a possible explanation for this, suggesting that, overall, companies in developing countries carry out internal CSR on a far smaller scale. Therefore, it may not have a direct impact on employees' identification. However, internal CSR indirectly influences employee identification via perceived internal respect and perceived external prestige as demonstrated through post hoc analysis. This offers an interesting avenue for future research.

### Moderating Role of Employees' Calling Orientation

Hypotheses 3 and 4 concern the moderating effect of calling orientation on the relationship between external CSR and perceived external prestige, and between internal CSR and perceived internal respect. Our analyses support these hypotheses, showing that organizational CSR activities have a varying degree of influence over different employees, depending on the importance they assign to CSR. In other words, an employee who puts high value on CSR is more likely to find that the organization's CSR activities enhance his or her self-esteem (Glavas and Godwin, 2013).

### Theoretical Contributions

According to Jones (2010) and He and Brown (2013, p. 19) there is dearth of research regarding how CSR affects employee attitudes and behaviors—especially employees' organizational identification. Furthermore, CSR has occupied a central position in strategic management and consumer research whereas there has been meager contribution regarding how CSR affects employees' organizational identification in organizational behavior literature (He and Brown, 2013). The past research in this realm has observed that employees' perceptions about the status and identity of the organization can influence their level of organizational identification (Tyler and Blader, 2003; Blader and Tyler, 2009). Consequently, organizational identification can be related to the emerging agenda of CSR as postulated by Glavas and Godwin (2013) and He and Brown (2013). In the backdrop of this recent theoretical development, this study has allowed us to make a substantial contribution to delineate both mediating and moderating mechanisms which actually facilitate the relationship between CSR and employees' organizational identification. This contribution is vital in the sense that it allows us to reveal the missing linchpins in this apparent direct relationship. In so doing, we make two vital theoretical contributions.

First, we underline the mediating effect of status evaluations through the group engagement model (Tyler and Blader, 2003). This mediated model enhances our theoretical understanding of this important relationship and explains how CSR activities help develop employees' organizational identification. Thus, the study delineates the nature of the relationship between CSR and employees' identification, provides an improved understanding of the processes at work, and highlights the implications for managing CSR initiatives in organizations. For instance, our findings suggest that future studies should differentiate between external and internal CSR initiatives when examining their impact on employee outcomes. While, importantly, both external and internal CSR activities follow separate psychological processes, the post hoc analysis suggests that perceived external prestige serves as a mediating mechanism for both types of CSR.

Finally, the study contributes to the literature by conceptualizing and testing employees' calling orientation (Walsh et al., 2003) as a moderating mechanism to explicate the alleged direct relationship between CSR and employee identification. We show how CSR has a different impact across the organization's employees and that this impact depends on employee characteristics: not all employees will respond equally positively. Micro CSR researchers need to take this boundary condition into account to understand the phenomenon better.

### Practical Implications

The study's findings have several implications for managers when formulating and implementing CSR strategies. The first concerns the importance of both internal and external CSR and the associated payoff for the organization. Employee attitudes and behaviors are scarce, intangible and unique resources with no perfect substitute (Ballou et al., 2003; Fulmer et al., 2003). Therefore, CSR helps maintain an effective workforce, creating a competitive advantage that affects business performance (Branco and Rodrigues, 2006).

The results demonstrate that the benefits of CSR activities are not limited to external prestige and external stakeholders, but also help in changing the attitudes of internal stakeholders. We also suggest that both types of CSR are effective in strengthening employees' identification with their organization. Managers should help employees understand perceived external prestige by highlighting the positive impact of CSR activities.

Finally, the findings suggest that CSR does not only have a positive impact on employees' identification, but it also helps the firm boost its perceived external prestige. This is important to take into account when formulating effective internal strategies to influence employees' related attitudes and behaviors. The moderated mediation model shows that the impact of CSR on employees' identification varies from individual to individual depending on their calling orientation. Managers should keep in mind these individual differences when gauging the role of CSR in this context. Thus, there is no "best way" of carrying out CSR and the difference in employees' calling orientation plays an important role in evaluating how effective a particular initiative is likely to be.

### Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The study has several limitations. First, the sample does not fully represent the population at large, given that it comprises only multinational corporations engaged in CSR activities. This may restrict the range of the external CSR measure and limit the extent to which we can generalize the results across other organizations.

Second, all the measures in this study draw on selfreported data on individuals' perceptions and attitudes. Although researchers argue that this is a useful and valid source of data (Glick et al., 1986; Spector, 1994), it can also create common method bias (Spector, 1994). We have followed various recommendations for minimizing this bias, such as ensuring the confidentiality of respondents, providing a cover letter that explains the purpose of the study, and measuring predictors and dependent variables separately (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Since all the constructs were measured using a cross-sectional design, a single-factor model was also analyzed. This showed a poor fit to the data, implying that no single factor explains the bulk of the variance. Thus, common method variance was not a serious concern in our dataset.

In future, we suggest using a longitudinal design to address any concerns relating to causal relationships and cross-sectional data. The use of a more sophisticated design will provide robust evidence of this mediating relationship (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). We also propose including the behavioral outcomes of organizational identification (e.g., task and contextual performance, actual turnover), which can be measured using objective data. This would strengthen the research design and enhance the reliability of the results.

Another important avenue for future research may be related to conceptualization and operationalization of perceived internal respect with slightly different lens. In present study conceptualization of perceived internal respect only captured the employees' perceptions about how they are treated within organization (self-focused), which ignores the collective/generalized side of respect. In other words, when an employee is asked to report the internal respect related to all employees or colleagues i.e., in "we or they" mode instead of reporting in "I" mode (please refer to perceived internal respect scale in Supplementary Material Appendix I), then s/he may report differently. This is important from our point of view because perceived external prestige is about a collective entity, and by using this proposed conceptualization we will be able to capture collective side of internal respect which will provide us an opportunity to explore the competing roles of these mediating mechanisms.

Finally, a potential line of research is that of other boundary conditions, such as social culture, personality traits, and other

### REFERENCES


contextual factors, which would help improve our understanding of the mediating mechanism. This, in turn, would help managers better understand the varying effect of CSR activities on different employees.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

IH helped designing the study, and wrote the manuscript. ZR helped designing and writing the manuscript. GA collected and analyzed the data and provided feedback on the manuscript. OF repositioned and fine-tuned the paper, wrote introduction, and provided feedback on the manuscript.

### SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The Appendix for this article can be found online at: http:// journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00788


**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Hameed, Riaz, Arain and Farooq. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Widely Assumed but Thinly Tested: Do Employee Volunteers' Self-Reported Skill Improvements Reflect the Nature of Their Volunteering Experiences?

David A. Jones \*

Grossman School of Business, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

An increasing number of companies use corporate volunteering programs (CVPs) to support and coordinate their employees' efforts to serve their communities. Among the most frequently touted benefits of such programs to sponsoring companies and employee volunteers alike is the opportunities for employees to develop tangible work-related skills through their volunteering activities. Evidence for skill development through volunteering, however, is mostly limited to the expressed beliefs of corporate leaders and employee volunteers. This study was designed to contribute to this largely anecdotal literature by testing hypotheses about the extent to which employee volunteers' self-reported skill development reflects the characteristics of the volunteers and their volunteering experiences. Study participants were 74 employee volunteers who completed a service apprenticeship managed by a U.S.-based nonprofit called Citizen Schools that partners with middle schools to extend the learning day with a combination of academic support, enrichment, and youth development activities. Data were obtained via the nonprofit's records, and surveys completed by employee volunteers before and after their service experience, including measures used to assess selfreported improvements in each of 10 work-related skills: communicating performance expectations, leadership, mentorship, motivating others, project management, providing performance feedback, public speaking and presenting, speaking clearly, teamwork, and time management. Support was found for several hypothesized effects suggesting that employees who practiced specific skills more often during their volunteering experience reported greater improvements in those skills. Improvements in some skills were higher among employee volunteers who completed a greater number of pre-volunteering preparation courses, and the effects of preparation courses were moderated by the employee volunteers' self-efficacy about improving their work-related skills on all 10 skills as hypothesized. I discuss the implications of these findings for theory and research, and provide suggestions for designing volunteer experiences that encourage service commitments from companies and their employees, and ultimately create tangible value for them and meaningful social value for their communities.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, corporate volunteerism programs, employee volunteers, employee volunteerism, community involvement, skill development, professional development, self-efficacy

Edited by:

Pablo Fernández-Berrocal, University of Malaga, Spain

#### Reviewed by:

Marco Depolo, University of Bologna, Italy Jonathan Edward Booth, London School of Economics, UK

> \*Correspondence: David A. Jones dajones@uvm.edu

#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 31 December 2015 Accepted: 22 March 2016 Published: 15 April 2016

#### Citation:

Jones DA (2016) Widely Assumed but Thinly Tested: Do Employee Volunteers' Self-Reported Skill Improvements Reflect the Nature of Their Volunteering Experiences? Front. Psychol. 7:495. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00495

### INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of firms are developing corporate volunteering programs (CVPs) to support and coordinate their employees' efforts to serve their communities and other social and environmental causes (Peloza et al., 2009; Henning and Jones, 2013). In the U.S., for example, as the percentage of the adult population who volunteer their time each year has remained relatively stable at 25–30% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014), the extent of volunteering through CVPs has grown considerably more rapidly, with over 90% of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the U.S. having a CVP (Boccalandro, 2009). Similar growth in CVPs is observed in the U.K. and Western Europe, as well (Bussell and Forbes, 2008; Pajo and Lee, 2011).

Research shows that volunteering on one's own time outside of work is linked to employees' job performance (Rodell, 2013), and employees who volunteer through their employer's CVP report higher satisfaction and commitment (Peterson, 2004; de Gilder et al., 2005). Other studies show that CVPs are effective for attracting a greater number of job applicants, thereby increasing the likelihood of hiring high performing employees (Jones et al., 2014). Another study showed that employees who valued and appreciated their employer's CVP had stronger organizational identification and intentions to remain with their employing organization, and they performed more cooperative extra-role behaviors at work (Jones, 2010).

Of particular relevance to this study, however, is the question of whether employee volunteers can develop their work-related skills through their employer's CVP. "Opinion-poll" surveys consistently show that various parties claim that CVPs offer valuable opportunities for employees to develop tangible skills that transfer to their paid employment role (Henning and Jones, 2013). Such claims are offered by the authors of articles in the popular business press (e.g., Barbian, 2001), business leaders (e.g., Gurchiek, 2007; Lee, 2011), CVP directors (e.g., Wild, 1993), and the employee volunteers themselves (e.g., Tuffrey, 2003; Peterson, 2004). Human resources professionals likewise express this belief, with some going so far as to suggest that CVPs can effectively replace formal training and internal development programs (Points of Light Foundation, 2005).

But, as they saying goes, talk is cheap. Scholarly and practitioner-driven research in this area is almost exclusively limited to anecdotal and qualitative accounts of skill development (Geroy et al., 2000; Hall et al., 2001; Pancer et al., 2002; Graff, 2004). As the authors of several literature reviews have noted (e.g., Cihlar, 2004; Henning and Jones, 2013), the employee volunteerism literature is replete with anecdotal evidence and there is great need for more rigorous testing of theoretically-driven hypotheses, especially with respect to testing evidence for skill development through volunteering.

The present study was designed to extend and contribute to the largely anecdotal literature on skill development through employee volunteerism by testing hypotheses about the extent to which employees' self-reported skill development reflects the characteristics of the volunteers and their volunteering experiences. For instance, if skill development requires practice and employees can truly enhance their skills through volunteering, it stands to reason that employees who practice specific skills more often during their volunteering assignments will experience and report higher levels of improvements in those skills (Bartel et al., 2001). To foreshadow a second study hypothesis, individuals' self-efficacy facilitates learning and behavior change (Bandura, 1977), so if skill development truly occurs the effects of various aspects of the volunteering experiences on self-reported skill development will be stronger among employee volunteers who possess greater self-efficacy about their ability to enhance their work-related skills. With only a few notable and important exceptions (see Booth et al., 2009; Pajo and Lee, 2011; Grant, 2012), the employee volunteerism literature has not adequately considered how characteristics of the volunteering experiences affect the subsequent reactions and other outcomes among employee volunteers. As stated by Pajo and Lee (Pajo and Lee, 2011, P: 468), the nature of the literature has propagated "views of employee volunteering initiatives as relatively undifferentiated and homogenous in character," which does not reflect the reality of these activities and, I assert, their differential effects on employee volunteers.

In the present study, I take advantage of the unique experiences that each employee volunteer encounters to test theoretically grounded hypotheses about the effects of those experiences, as well as an important personal characteristic (selfefficacy), on their self-reported improvements in 10 work-related skills. In addition to contributing to theory and offering a more rigorous approach to understanding skill development through employee volunteerism, this study has potentially important implications for promoting societal good. Should support be found for study hypotheses, it would provide what may be the strongest evidence to date for the widely-held but thinlytested claim that employees can develop their work-related skills through volunteering. Evidence from this study might also inform future research that can provide even stronger evidence for this phenomenon, if it truly exists. The accumulation of such evidence would allow corporate policy makers to make more informed decisions and provide stronger justifications for their investments in employee volunteerism, rather than being forced to rely on anecdotal evidence and what appear to be unwarranted claims in the popular press as judged by scientific standards.

Corporate-sponsored volunteerism has been described as a win-win-win-win-win phenomenon, bringing the potential to provide important benefits for employee volunteers, employing organizations, volunteer organizations and community groups, individual citizens, and governments (Graff, 2004). Skill development through employee volunteerism is one of the most frequently touted reasons companies invest in CVPs (Henning and Jones, 2013), and among the top reasons employees chose to volunteer is to gain skills (Geroy et al., 2000). As such, it behooves all stakeholders involved to have a better understanding of whether the widely assumed beliefs and self-reported evidence for employee skill development through volunteering have any

grounding in the nature of the associated volunteer experiences on which such claims are based.

### PRIOR RESEARCH ON SKILL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH COMPANY-SPONSORED VOLUNTEERING

Evidence suggests that as many as 60% of companies that invest in a CVP do so to develop their employees' skills and competencies (Points of Light Foundation, 2000). As previously noted, numerous anecdotal and qualitative accounts show that people claim to believe that employees can develop their workrelated skills through volunteering through their employer's CVP. As an illustration of such evidence from the practitioneroriented literature, Tuffrey (2003) reported that when employee volunteers were asked what they "got out" of their involvement in a CVP, 42 and 36% endorsed the statements, "improved my team working ability" and "developed skills useful for my job," respectively. Similar evidence can be found in the scholarly literature as well. Peterson (2004), for example, asked employees to rate items to measure their beliefs about the extent to which employees might develop or enhance four types of skills through participating in a CVP: teamwork, verbal, and written communication, project management, and leadership and people skills. Employees who volunteered through the CVP rated all four job skill items significantly higher than did the employees who had not volunteered through the CVP. While informative, self-reported endorsements like these provided limited evidence in support of the inference that self-reported skill improvements reflect actual enhancements in work-related skills.

Other scholars have analyzed the content of learning stories from more senior level business professionals who participated in their company's international service learning program. Pless et al.'s (2011) analysis of the "Project Ulysses" program at PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests that senior-level leaders believed they developed skills like greater cultural empathy, a broader understanding of sustainability issues, and emotional regulation. A strength of such evidence is that the self-reported learning was grounded in the executives' narratives about their international service experiences, rather than just endorsing statements about skill development. However, the nature and depth of the volunteering experiences among these senior executives are not representative of the kinds of experiences most employee volunteers have through participating in their employer's CVP. Indeed, as other researchers have observed (Wood, 2007; Pajo and Lee, 2011), most employee volunteers work in non-senior organizational roles in their paid employment context. Moreover, the improvements inferred by Pless et al. (2011) focused more on broader learning outcomes (e.g., "increases sensitivity to ethical issues"), rather than specific behavioral-based skills (e.g., time management or providing performance feedback). As such, while Pless et al. (2011) and other studies of international service assignments among senior executives offer important insights, it is questionable whether the evidence for meaningful professional development from this research generalizes to the development of specific behavior-based skills among the larger employee population who engage in community service through their employer's CVP.

In the context of the phenomenon on which the present study focuses, two studies published in high caliber scholarly journals are particularly relevant. Booth et al. (2009) obtained access to archival data from over 3600 Canadian employees, many of whom responded "yes" to questions about whether the "volunteer activities provided" them with seven different skills. Importantly, employees who spent more hours volunteering claimed they improved a significantly greater number of skills. Notwithstanding the limitations of the yes/no response format used in the archival data and the focus on broader competencies (e.g., "interpersonal skills") rather than more specific skill areas (e.g., "teamwork skills"), in the opinion of this author these findings provide the strongest evidence to date in the published research literature because they link skill improvements to an aspect of the volunteering experience that logically relates to the development process: having more opportunity to practice work-related skills over time.

In a second particularly relevant study published in a highly reputable journal, Caligiuri et al. (2013) focused on 65 employees from a pharmaceutical company who completed volunteer assignments lasting 5.4 months, on average. Six months after returning to work, the mean response to a measure of "skill development" suggests that many believed they developed skills. However, rather than focusing on behavior-based skills, the measure comprised items that focused on the employee volunteers' perspectives back at work, (e.g., "The volunteer assignment has enabled you to bring new ideas and fresh ways of thinking or working"). The authors also measured "capability development" by averaging responses from the managers of 19 employees to two items that focused on perspectives at work. Results showed that employee-reported "skill development" was positively correlated with managerial ratings of "capacity development" (r = 0.35). However, this finding offers limited evidence because neither measure included items about specific skills.

Caligiuri et al. (2013) did, however, focus on skills in another measure. Employees rated how often they used eight skills while volunteering (e.g., "marketing or communications"), and responses were averaged to measure "skill utilization." Surprisingly, skill use correlated negatively with self-reported "skill development" (r = –0.17) and managerial ratings of "capacity development" (r = –0.27). These unexpected findings may be due to the mismatch between the measures used to assess "skill utilization" that included behavior-based skills, versus the other measures that did not. This is unfortunate because establishing links between skill use during volunteering with selfreported skill improvements and managerial ratings of capacity development would have provided the strongest yet assessment of skill development through volunteering; indeed, to enhance professional skills, employees need opportunity to practice them, and volunteering assignments provide relatively "safe places" for doing so.

### THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

The service context experienced by the participants in the present study reflected three conditions that theory and research reviewed by Caligiuri et al. (2013) suggest are important for enhancing the potential for meaningful skill development. First, the volunteering experience was meaningful: participants in this study completed a 10-week "apprenticeship" through which the employee volunteers drew on their professional expertise for 90 min. plus preparation time each week to teach middle school youth, discuss career opportunities, and prepare them for a public presentation of a major project. About half of the students' projects were grounded in one or more of the so-called STEM areas (science, technology, engineering, and math). Second, the experience offered novel challenges: managing a group hyperactive youth with little background knowledge pertaining to the subject matter being taught creates challenges that are far removed from the daily work environment of the professionals in the sample. Third, the experience was socially supportive and interactive: each apprenticeship was co-taught by a staff member from the nonprofit, and often among a small team of employee volunteers (among the sample used in this study, there was an average of 3.34 volunteers per apprenticeship). Thus, the service context experienced by the employee volunteers who participated in this study provided conditions that likely nurture their skill development in a general sense. Study hypotheses build on these conditions and incorporate theory about social learning and skill mastery.

Hypothesis 1 was that skill development will be higher among volunteers who have opportunities to practice a given skill more often during their volunteering experiences. Practice and repetition, unsurprisingly, are important parts of the skill mastery process (Bandura, 1997). According to one study, the accounts from graduate students who engaged in a service learning experience suggest that skill development is enhanced when volunteers have more opportunities to practice professional skills in novel and challenging contexts (Bartel et al., 2001). Moreover, the service context in the present study provided a safe and socially supportive context to practice and use skills pertaining to the meaningful and novel challenges involved, thereby creating conditions that promote skill development (Caligiuri et al., 2013).

The volunteering context in the present study was ideally suited to assessing this hypothesis about skill utilization. The service apprenticeships differed widely in the opportunities they provided for employee volunteers to use and practice each skill due to variability in the number of employee volunteers involved in each apprenticeship, the different levels of sophistication in the various project topics, and the number and characteristics of the student mentees involved (e.g., their levels of attention, aptitude and knowledge base, and motivation).

Hypothesis 1: The extent to which employees utilize each of 10 work-related skills while volunteering is associated with greater self-reported improvement in each skill.

Hypothesis 2 focused on the effects of completing pre-volunteering preparation courses on subsequent skill development (e.g., a course in Lesson Planning). The nonprofit agency that designed and managed the service apprenticeships offered its volunteers a total of ∼5 h of support via four optional preparation courses. The preparation courses were designed to impart advice and guidance, including advice about employing different skills that the volunteers could then practice during their 10-week apprenticeship. The subsequent volunteer experiences provided the employee volunteers a relatively "safe" environment to practice and develop the work-related skills discussed in the pre-volunteering preparation courses because the employee volunteers would not face the same kinds of pressures, constraints, and consequences of failure that they might have otherwise experienced if they were to practice the same skills in their paid work settings. This socially supportive and safe environment provided through preparation courses likely enhances employee volunteers' confidence and willingness to use their skills while volunteering to achieve their meaningful objectives and overcome the novel challenges they face, which reflect the conditions that promote skill development (Caligiuri et al., 2013).

Hypothesis 2: The number of pre-volunteering preparation courses the employee volunteers complete is associated with greater self-reported improvement in each of 10 work-related skills.

Following the predictive tradition in social-cognitive and applied psychology of considering person-by situation interactions (Mischel, 1973), Hypotheses 3 and 4 focused on a characteristic of the individual employee volunteer that moderates the strength of the situation-based effects specified in Hypotheses 1 and 2: Self-efficacy, which refers to a person's confidence and belief about having the capacity to execute behaviors that ultimately achieve a desired performance level in a specific domain (Bandura, 1977).

Self-efficacy is well recognized as an important factor in learning and development, behavioral change, and the achievement of specific goals and performance objectives (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998; Bandura, 2001). Self-efficacy contributes independently to subsequent performance after controlling for ability and prior performance levels because individuals with higher self-efficacy put forth greater effort to learn a new skill or change a behavioral pattern, and they are apt to sustain that effort in the face challenges, difficulties, and adversity (Bandura, 1997). Through the persistence enhancing effects of self-efficacy, individuals can work toward skill improvement and mastery even in the presence of psychologically threatening or uncomfortable contexts (Bandura, 2001), such as the unfamiliar contexts in which employee volunteers often operate. Employee volunteers with higher self-efficacy will be more persistent in using and developing their skills to achieve their objectives even in the face of challenges they might encounter in the novel and unfamiliar settings in which they volunteer that reflect the kinds of novel and meaningful challenges that are believed to foster skill development (Caligiuri et al., 2013). Accordingly, I hypothesized that the effects of skill use and the number of completed preparation courses on skill development are stronger among employee volunteers with higher self-efficacy about their ability to improve their work-related skills.

Hypothesis 3: Pre-volunteering self-efficacy about the ability to improve work-related skills moderates the effects of skill utilization on skill improvement for each of 10 work-related skills, such that the relationships are stronger when the employee volunteers' prior self-efficacy is higher.

Hypothesis 4: Pre-volunteering self-efficacy about the ability to improve work-related skills moderates the effects of the number of pre-volunteering preparation courses completed on skill improvement for each of 10 work-related skills, such that the relationships are stronger when the employee volunteers' prior self-efficacy is higher.

### MATERIALS AND METHODS

### Volunteering Context

Participants were employees who, with the encouragement and support of their employers, completed a 10 week apprenticeship as volunteer Citizen Teachers through the U.S.-based nonprofit called Citizen Schools. Citizen Schools is a national nonprofit that partners with middle schools to extend the learning day with a combination of academic support, enrichment, and youth development activities.

Citizen Schools coordinates and manages "apprenticeships," a project-based course and mentorship model led by community volunteers called "Citizen Teachers," many of whom are recruited from the people employed by a set of committed corporate partners. Citizen Teachers may elect to teach apprenticeship classes on various topics including financial planning, law and blogging; nearly half of the Citizen Teachers chose to cover topics grounded in the science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines. Citizen Teachers, who volunteer individually or in small groups, meet with students for 90 min. once per week to teach them about selected topics and career opportunities and to prepare them for a public presentation of their projects at the end of the 10-week apprenticeship. Each apprenticeship is co-taught by a member of Citizen Schools' staff. Because apprenticeships take place during typical business hours, Citizen Schools and its volunteers rely on support from the volunteers' employing organizations.

In addition to lecture preparation time and 90 min. in class each week, at the time of the study the Citizen Teachers were offered four optional pre-volunteering preparation courses comprising ∼5 h in total. For instance, two particularly important preparation courses were on Lesson Planning and Apprenticeship Design. Thus, the employee volunteers invested about 20–35 total hours of volunteer work throughout their apprenticeship experience.

### Study Participants

Participants were 74 employee volunteers, with each gender represented relatively equally (38 females and 36 males). The employee volunteers were encouraged and supported by their employers (Cognizant Technology Solutions Inc., Google, Fidelity Investments, and Cisco Systems) to complete the 10 week apprenticeship in fall 2012 or spring 2013. The volunteers worked in seven U.S. states: California (n = 8), Illinois (n = 9), Massachusetts (n = 15), New Jersey (n = 11), New Mexico (n = 2), New York (n = 21), and North Carolina (n = 8).

The volunteers averaged 34 years of age (ranging from 22 to 63 years) and about 4 years of tenure in their employing organization, ranging from as little as 1 month to over 15 years of tenure with their employer at the time of the pre-volunteering survey used in this study. Their highest levels of education obtained included a technical diploma or other training (n = 3), an undergraduate degree for half of the study participants (n = 37), a Master's degree (n = 28), or a doctorate/Ph.D. (n = 6). Their average amount of lifetime work experience was 12 years and 11 months, ranging from 9 months to 47 years. Based on the job functions the employee volunteers listed, a conservative estimate is that about one-third of the CTs (n = 24, 32%) performed work pertaining to the STEM areas, although the true percentage is likely higher because not included in this estimate were CTs working in Consulting, Business Unit Management, and other functions that plausibly pertain to the STEM areas given the nature of the employing organizations involved.

### Study Procedure and Measures

Data used for hypothesis testing included the number of prevolunteering preparation courses completed by each employee volunteer obtained with their consent from records provided by Citizen Schools. The employee volunteers completed online surveys before the start of their apprenticeship experience, and 6–8 weeks after its end. Both surveys mostly comprised measures used for organizational development and purposes that were of interest to Citizen Schools and the participating employers and unrelated to the present study. The pre-apprenticeship survey included demographic, volunteering, and work history questions, and embedded among other measures was a single item measure of self-efficacy about skill improvement, which was responded to on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Reflecting defining features of the self-efficacy construct and recommendations about its measurement (Bandura, 2006), the self-efficacy item constructed for this study focused on the respondent's confidence about a context-specific ability: "I am confident about my ability to develop and improve my workrelated skills."

The post-apprenticeship survey included an open-ended question about whether and how the employee volunteers believed they benefitted from their volunteering experience, without including references to skill development or any other potential benefits. After completing other measures not pertinent to the present study, respondents completed 10 items used to measure skill improvement in each of 10 work-related skills. The employee volunteers were asked to compare their current levels of each skill to their prior levels of that skill during a specified month and year, which corresponded to the period immediately before they had started their apprenticeship experience. Each skill improvement item began with, "Compared to [month/year], my skills at [one of 10 work-related skills] are...," and the response options allowed for the possibility of skill declines as well as improvements, ranging from one to five (Weaker, About the Same, A Little Stronger, Stronger, and Much Stronger). The 10 work-related skills measured in this study were: "communicating performance expectations," "leadership," "mentorship," "motivating others," "project management," "providing performance feedback," "public speaking and presenting," "speaking clearly," "teamwork," and "time management."

Decisions about the selection and wording of the 10 skills were made through the following process. I first created an initial list of skills based on three considerations: their relevance to the apprenticeship service experience based on materials provided by Citizen Schools, their relevance to most professional employees' paid work contexts, and their grounding in skills assessed in prior research on this topic. Pertaining to the latter, I adapted the wording used in prior items to focus on more specific skills in this study relative to the more general skills measured by other researchers. For example, grounded in Booth et al.'s (2009) measure of "communication skills," I created items to measure "communicating performance expectations," "providing performance feedback," "public speaking and presenting," and "speaking clearly." I then discussed this initial list of skills with subject matter experts from Citizen Schools, including former Citizen Teachers, and refined the list accordingly. Representatives from each corporate partner reviewed all survey items and had opportunity to opine about the relevance of the 10 skills to their employees' paid work contexts, and they did not suggest any wording changes or item removals pertaining to the 10 skills.

After completing the 10 skill improvement items, the employee volunteers were asked to respond to items used to measure skill utilization. Respondents rated how often they used each of the 10 work-related skills during their volunteering experience on a scale from 1 (Never) to 7 (Every Day).

### RESULTS

### Self-Reported Skill Improvements

When asked to respond to an open-ended question about the potential benefits they received from their volunteering experience, 32% of the employees wrote comments pertaining to skill development (e.g., "It improved my public speaking skills," "Improving my leadership," "How to better manage a project with peers," and "I benefited by improving my leadership and organizational skills") or the opportunity to practice or gain confidence in their skills (e.g., "The experience challenged my communication skills in ways I am not challenged at work," Developed my confidence, leadership, and presentation skills," and "Professional growth; Public speaking; More confidence in my abilities").

Responses to the self-reported skill improvement items showed that compared to before they started their service apprenticeships, about 40–45% of the employee volunteers claimed some level of improvement in skills pertaining to leadership, mentorship, motivating others, project management, and public speaking and presenting. About 30–35% claimed improvements in skills pertaining to communicating performance expectations, providing performance feedback, speaking clearly, teamwork, and time management.

### Hypothesis Testing

I assessed empirical justification for including nine demographic, volunteering, and work history variables as potential control variables in the models. Regression analyses showed that selfreported improvements on each of the 10 skills did not systematically differ as a function of any of six variables for which there was complete data across the sample: gender, age, education level, lifetime work experience, employment tenure, and the number of service apprenticeships they had completed prior to the one in which they were most recently engaged. Specifically, across the 60 associated coefficients, only one was significant: employment tenure had a small and marginally significant effect on motivating others (b = –0.01, p = 0.051). Moreover, selfreported skill improvements did not systematically differ based on three other variables for which there were missing data: the employee volunteers' receipt of other job-related training during the period in which study data were collected, whether they managed or supervised others, or the length of time they had managed others. Accordingly, none of these demographic, volunteering, and work history variables were used as control variables in hypothesis testing.

**Table 1** shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables, and **Tables 2, 3** display the results from the regression models used for hypothesis testing. Each self-reported skill development variable was regressed on skill utilization (i.e., the use of that skill during the volunteering experience) and the number of pre-volunteering preparation courses entered in Step 1, self-efficacy about skill improvement in Step 2, and the two moderator terms in Step 3. I assessed all hypotheses using two-tailed tests and the normative 0.05 alpha level.

Hypothesis 1 was that skill utilization during volunteering is positively associated with skill improvement. **Tables 2, 3** show that support for this hypothesis was found through the significant effects from Step 1 on improvements in four skills: communicating performance expectations, project management, providing performance feedback, and public speaking and presenting. On the other six skills, support was not found for Hypothesis 1 (leadership, mentorship, motivating others, speaking clearly, teamwork, and time management), although a marginally significant trend was found on motivating others (p < 0.10).

Hypothesis 2 was about the effects of the number of prevolunteering preparation courses completed on improvement in each skill. As seen in **Tables 2, 3**, support was found through significant effects reported in Step 1 on six skills: communicating performance expectations, mentorship, providing performance feedback, public speaking and presenting, speaking clearly, and time management. Hypothesis 2 was not supported for the other four skills (leadership, motivating others, project management, and teamwork). Across the 20 coefficients tested to assess Hypotheses 1 and 2, all relationships were positive as expected.

Hypotheses 3 and 4 were that pre-volunteering levels of self-efficacy about skill improvement moderates the effects of


TABLE


TABLE 2 | Regression results predicting employee volunteers' self-reported skill improvements in communicating performance expectations, leadership, mentorship, motivating others, and project management.

N = 74. S.-efficacy, Self-Efficacy about Skill Improvement. † p < 0.10. \*p < 0.05. \*\*p < 0.01.

TABLE 3 | Regression results predicting employee volunteers' self-reported skill improvements in providing performance feedback, public speaking and presenting, speaking clearly, teamwork, and time management.


N = 74. S.-efficacy, Self-Efficacy about Skill Improvement. † p < 0.10. \*p < 0.05. \*\*p < 0.01. \*\*\*p < 0.001.

skill utilization and preparation courses. Results reported for Step 3 in **Tables 2, 3** show that after accounting for the effects of skill utilization, preparation courses, and self-efficacy, none of the moderator terms representing the interaction between self-efficacy and skill utilization were significant. Therefore, no support was found for Hypothesis 3. Pertaining to Hypothesis 4, however, the moderator terms comprising the number of preparation courses completed and self-efficacy were significant in predicting self-reported improvements in all 10 skills.

To understand the nature of these significant interactions, I tested simple slopes by regressing self-reported improvement in each skill on the number of courses completed within higher and lower groups on self-efficacy about skill improvement. In the context of the modest sample size and distribution of responses to the self-efficacy measure, I was unable to create groups using a ±1 SD approach, for example. I instead used the distribution of

scores to identify the point at which two similarly sized groups could be created while comprising enough respondents to allow for meaningful inferences based on simple slope tests. I created a higher self-efficacy group comprising individuals who responded with a seven to indicate their "strong agreement" with the item (n = 35), and a lower self-efficacy group comprising all other individuals in the sample (n = 39). **Table 4** displays the results of these simple slope tests: Across all 10 skill improvement variables, the simple slope for the effect of preparation courses was not significant among the lower self-efficacy group, and the slope was significant and positive among the higher self-efficacy group. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was fully supported.

### Post-hoc Analyses

I conducted post hoc analyses using measures of skill utilization and skill improvement that were aggregated across the items pertaining to all 10 skills. Both aggregate variables are formative


TABLE 4 | Tests of simple slopes within lower and higher groups on self-efficacy about skill improvement: effects of the number of pre-volunteering preparation courses completed on self-reported improvements in 10 work-related skills.

\*\*p < 0.01. \*\*\*p < 0.001.

measures comprising 10 indicators that define and cause the measured construct, rather than reflective measures for which the indicators reflect an underlying latent construct. The indicators of a formative measure are not interchangeable with other indicators, nor do the indicators necessarily covary given their potentially different antecedents and consequences (Podsakoff et al., 2006). In the case of these two formative measures, however, the indicators did covary to a considerable degree, as suggested by the Cronbach alpha internal consistency estimates of 0.92 and 0.95 for the aggregated skill utilization and skill improvement measures, respectively.

I regressed the aggregate measure of skill improvement on the aggregate measure of skill utilization and other study variables entered in the regression model using the same approach described for hypothesis testing. The model's total R 2 value of 0.29 was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Consistent with the significant effects that provided support for Hypotheses 1 and 2, results from Step 1 showed that the aggregate measure of skill improvement was significantly predicted by the aggregate skill utilization measure (b = 0.16, SE = 0.07, p < 0.05) and the number of pre-volunteering preparation classes completed (b = 0.12, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05). Consistent with the absence of support found for Hypothesis 3 and the full support found for Hypothesis 4, results from Step 3 showed that self-efficacy about skill improvement did not interact with the aggregate skill utilization variable (b = –0.04, SE = 0.07, p > 0.05), but it did significantly interact with the number of preparation courses completed in predicting the aggregate measure of skill improvement (b = 0.26, SE = 0.07, p < 0.05). The same pattern of simple slopes was observed as the pattern reported for the tests of Hypothesis 4: the effect of the number of preparation courses completed was not significant among the lower selfefficacy group (b = –0.07, SE = 0.07, p > 0.05), but it was significant among the higher self-efficacy group (b = 0.35, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001), explaining 37% of the variance in the aggregated measure of skill improvement.

### DISCUSSION

An increasing number of companies invest in corporate volunteering programs to coordinate and foster their employees' volunteer activities and community service, and anecdotal evidence shows that multiple parties believe that employee volunteers can develop work-related skills through volunteering (Henning and Jones, 2013). Study results showed that, in response to an open-ended question about the potential benefits they received from volunteering, approximately one-third of the employee volunteers mentioned skill development (e.g., "It improved my public speaking skills," "Improving my leadership"). Responses to survey items showed that about one-third to almost one-half of the employee volunteers claimed some level of skill improvement in each of the 10 work-related skills measured in this study: communicating performance expectations, leadership, mentorship, motivating others, project management, providing performance feedback, public speaking and presenting, speaking clearly, teamwork, and time management.

While the above findings are intriguing, as I stated at the outset of this article, "talk is cheap." Open-ended responses and the distributions of self-reported responses to statements about skill improvement offer the same kinds of anecdotal evidence that pervades the scholarly and practitioner literatures on this topic that the authors of literature reviews have lamented (Cihlar, 2004; Henning and Jones, 2013). Far more important for the purpose of advancing this literature are study findings from the tests of hypotheses that provide answers to the following question: Do self-reported skill improvements actually reflect the characteristics of the employee volunteers and the nature of their volunteering experiences, as theory and common sense dictate they should if employee volunteers are truly developing their work-related skills through volunteering?

Tests of study hypotheses showed that the employee volunteers who had more opportunities to practice four workrelated skills while volunteering reported significantly greater improvements in those same four skills. If skill development truly occurs through volunteering, such findings are not surprising given the similar effects reported among students in service learning contexts (Bartel et al., 2001), theory about skill mastery (Bandura, 1997), and common sense. Other results showed that self-reported improvements in six skills were significantly higher among employee volunteers who completed a greater number of pre-volunteering preparation courses. Moreover, and as I soon discuss in the context of well-established theory (Bandura, 1977, 2001; Locke and Latham, 2002), the effects of these preparation courses were moderated by the employee volunteers' self-efficacy about improving their work-related skills, such that the preparation courses were associated with greater improvements in all 10 skills among employee volunteers with higher self-efficacy. In the sections that follow I discuss the implications of these findings for theory and research, review study limitations, and provide practical suggestions for designing and managing volunteer experiences to create greater value for all stakeholders involved.

### Implications for Theory and Research

This study contributes to the scholarly literature by moving beyond findings about what employees claim to believe about skill development through employee volunteering (Peterson, 2004). While this study certainly has its own limitations that I later describe, it addresses limitations described earlier with respect to what are perhaps the two strongest published studies in this area (Booth et al., 2009; Caligiuri et al., 2013), such as by demonstrating that ratings of the extent of employee volunteers' use of specific skills during a volunteering assignment predicts the extent of their self-reported improvements in those same skills. In addition to reasons just described, I expected to find such effects because the volunteering context in this study conformed to three conditions that Caligiuri et al. (2013) described as being critically important for meaningful skill development through volunteering: the volunteering experiences were meaningful, offered novel challenges, and were socially supportive and interactive. In future studies, researchers should measure and test these and other characteristics of the volunteering experience to help fill the gap highlighted by Pajo and Lee (2011) in the scholarly understanding of how such characteristics affect subsequent outcomes among employee volunteers.

Other study results inform theory and future research in novel ways. Findings showed that the completion of a greater number of pre-volunteering preparation courses predicted improvements in all 10 skills among employee volunteers who had higher self-efficacy about skill improvement, but not among those with lower self-efficacy. Research on goal setting provides insight into the potential reasons the hypothesized interactive patterns were consistently found for the effects of preparation courses, despite the use of severely underpowered tests that created considerable challenges to detecting any significant interactions that truly exist. Research on goal setting shows that individuals who have higher self-efficacy set more challenging goals, develop better task strategies to attain them, and are less likely to become demoralized in the face of setbacks (Locke and Latham, 2002). Faced with complex challenges, people with higher levels of self-efficacy are more likely to develop task relevant strategies that, in turn, enhance performance (Winters and Latham, 1996; Seijts and Latham, 2001). As such, during their participation in pre-volunteering preparation courses, the employee volunteers with higher self-efficacy about skill improvement were apt to formulate strategies to use, improve, and apply their skills to create a rewarding apprenticeship experiences for both themselves and the youth they mentor, hence leading to greater skill development over the course of their 10-week apprenticeship. Future research on skill development through volunteering should explore the strategies volunteers develop to achieve challenging objectives and examine the extent to which those strategies involve the use and honing of specific work-related skills.

### Study Limitations and Other Directions for Future Research

The inferences that can be drawn from these results are tempered by a number of limitations of the study design. Among the most important limitations is that the measures of skill development are subject to the usual pitfalls of relying on self-reported data that may be heightened in the present context. The employee volunteers may have been motived to exaggerate their claims about skill improvement in an attempt to benefit the nonprofit agency involved or to justify to themselves or their employer that their time volunteering was time well spent. For this reason, I emphasized through the survey instructions the importance of honest responding, that only the researcher would have access to their survey responses, and that no individual responses would be shared with employers or any other party without maintaining confidentiality and anonymity. While this study extends prior research by linking self-reported skill development to characteristics of employee volunteers and their volunteer experiences, evidence of skill development through measures obtained via supervisor report or some other independent source would provide significantly stronger evidence than the present study can offer.

While measuring improvement through self-report is a meaningful limitation, there are good reasons to reject common method variance as a viable explanation for the majority of significant study results. Exactly 80% of the significant effects found in this study that provided support for study hypotheses utilized a variable that was not self-reported and was instead obtained from Citizen Schools' records: the number of prevolunteering preparation courses completed. Specifically, this variable was involved in 16 of the 20 significant coefficients that provided support for study hypotheses as reported in **Tables 2, 3**, including all 10 significant interaction effects. The other variable involved in the 10 significant interaction effects (self-efficacy about skill improvement) was measured 16–18 weeks before the self-reported measures of skill improvement, and temporal separation between predictors and criteria is a recommended method to reduce common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Moreover, the tests of simple slopes conformed precisely to the theorized and hypothesized interactive patterns across all 10 skill improvement variables, which provides convincing evidence

that common method bias is not driving this consistent pattern of effects (Siemsen et al., 2010). Accordingly, I can confidently rule out common method variance as a meaningful threat to the inferences drawn from most of the significant effects reported in this study.

Another design limitation is the use of single-items to measure most study variables. Single-item scales are often criticized for being potentially unreliable indicators of the underlying construct, and for insufficiently capturing a given construct space. Notwithstanding these potential issues, evidence suggests that their use is not always as problematic as some people assume. Wanous et al. (1997) provided meta-analytic evidence supporting the validity of single-item measures of job satisfaction, reporting a corrected mean correlation of 0.67 between single- and multiple-item measures, as well as test-retest reliabilities for single-item scales for which the lowest observed value was 0.70. Nagy (2002) likewise found evidence supporting the use of single-item measures of satisfaction facets, which correlated significantly with multiple-item measures of the same facets as assessed by the Job Descriptive Index (values ranged between 0.60 and 0.72), and the single-item measures explained similar amounts of variance in self-reported job performance and turnover intentions relative to the multiple-item versions. Similar findings and other types of validity evidence that support the use of single-item measures have been reported for measures of global self-esteem (Robins et al., 2001), burnout (Rohland et al., 2004), and stress symptoms (Elo et al., 2003). Of particular relevance is a study conducted over the course of six months involving over 300 inpatients at risk for substance use relapse (Hoeppner et al., 2011). Analyses of a single-item measure of self-efficacy provided consistent evidence for its convergent and discriminant validity with a 20-item self-efficacy measure and a temptation sub-scale, respectively. Moreover, this study reported that the single-item self-efficacy measure predicted relapse at 1, 3, and 6 month post-discharge, whereas the 20-item measure of self-efficacy did not.

Perhaps the largest limitation of this study is that the selfreported skill improvements among the employee volunteers were not compared to the same self-reported ratings among a comparable control group of employees who did not volunteer. As such, I am unable to estimate or rule out the potential influence of history and maturation effects on these findings (e.g., the possibility that skill improvements were due to common experiences at work during the time of the study such as an annual performance review meeting, or the natural skill development that occurs over time regardless of volunteering experiences). Results did show that skill development was unrelated to a single item used to assess the extent of any other work-related training they received during the apprenticeship period, but unknown is whether and the extent to which non-volunteers believe they develop their work-related skills to comparable degrees during the same period of time. A pre-post volunteering treatment-control group design would offer an especially strong assessment of skill development among employees who volunteered, relative to employees who did not. Specifically, researchers should measure the levels of each skill in both the treatment and control groups before and after individuals in the treatment group complete their volunteering experience to provide a rigorous assessment of skill development via volunteering relative to any potential skill changes among employees in the control group.

Also unknown is whether and the extent to which any skill development occurred during one or more of the four prevolunteering preparation courses versus occurring subsequent to those courses as a result of their influence on shaping the employee volunteers' use of specific work-related skills during later volunteering experiences. Based on information provided by the nonprofit about the preparation courses, the evidence for interactive effects with self-efficacy, and the goal setting theory and research I described previously (Locke and Latham, 2002), I suspect that most skill development occurred subsequent to the courses and that these employee volunteers likely developed their apprenticeship strategies during these preparation courses, but additional research would be needed to tease apart these potential effects. Notably, evidence for skill development from this study is not limited to the findings involving the completion of these courses, as the significant effects found for skill utilization in predicting self-reported improvements in four work-related skills were found after controlling for the effects of the preparation courses that were tested in the same step of the regression models.

### Suggestions for Practice and Volunteerism Program Design

These limitations notwithstanding, the results of this study provide insights about designing and managing CVPs for the most immediate and direct impact on skill development, and indirect impact on employer and community well-being. Below I provide suggestions for designing and managing CVPs and the experiences to encourage service commitments from companies and their employees, and ultimately create tangible value for them and meaningful social value in their communities. I stress, however, that the merits of these suggestions are predicated on the extent to which the findings from this study reflect true improvements in work-related skills among these (and other) employee volunteers, which is a question that can only be definitely resolved through more research conducted with higher levels of scientific rigor than extant research to date, including that of the present study. The following suggestions for practice are offered against the backdrop of this important caveat, which I refrain from repeating with each suggestion.

Through many CVPs, companies allocate 25 to 40 h of paid volunteering hours each year to their full time employees (Henning and Jones, 2013). The evidence for skill development from this study is based on a similar number of volunteer hours: each service apprenticeship involved ∼20–35 h, including the 15 h of in-class volunteering, preparation time, and time spent in the optional pre-volunteering preparation courses. This evidence for employees' skill development through volunteering adds to the growing business case for the multiple pay-offs employers reap from their investments in CVPs, including but not limited to evidence showing that such programs enhance corporate reputation and brand equity (Cihlar, 2004; Peloza et al., 2009; Henning and Jones, 2013); help firms attract more job applicants, which increases selection system utility (Jones and Willness, 2013; Jones et al., 2014); and improve employee retention, commitment, and extra-role cooperative behaviors at work (Peterson, 2004; de Gilder et al., 2005; Jones, 2010). While I am unaware of any rigorous assessments of cost-to-benefit ratios or the opportunity costs involved in creating and maintaining different types of CVPs, I am an eager consumer of the research evidence and am as convinced as a great many corporate leaders appear to be about the meaningful returns from investments in CVPs. The extant evidence justifies a focus of efforts not on understanding whether CVPs payoff for the sponsoring organizations, but how CVPs can best be managed to create meaningful shared value for companies, employee volunteers, and the causes and communities they serve.

The results of this study suggest that to enhance skill development CVPs should be designed and managed to provide employee volunteers with greater opportunities to practice and hone their work-related skills. Such arrangements may be best achieved through alliances between employers and the nonprofits that are served by employee volunteers (Booth et al., 2009). Presumably, opportunities to practice skills should occur through service activities that are meaningful and represent novel challenges while being socially supportive and interactive (Caligiuri et al., 2013). Other findings suggest that these types of volunteer activities should be targeted toward the broader employee population, rather than, overtly focusing on managing a firm's millennial-generation employees.

The sample included employee volunteers that ranged in age between 22 and 63 years, and age variability was unrelated to the levels of self-reported skill improvement across all ten skills measured in this study. This findings may be surprising and disappointing to corporate leaders and HR professionals who view CVPs as an important element of their strategies to attract and recruit millennial-generation employees, and of relevance to this study, to enhance their talents. The emphasis on using CVPs and related practices for managing "generation Y" employees is present in the popular business press (e.g., Epstein and Howes, 2006; Gurchiek, 2007), and has been a focus among the representatives of almost every company this author has worked with to develop or assess CVPs. But many age-related stereotypes in organizational and workplace contexts simply do not fit the data (e.g., Ng and Feldman, 2008, 2012), much like stereotypes about environmental behaviors among younger versus older-aged employees (Wiernik et al., 2013).

Generation Y-focused corporate leaders and HR professionals who interpret the lack of age-related effects in this study as something other than "good news" should instead view the lack of such effects as "great news." The results of this study suggest that skill development through volunteering is not limited to younger workers, or to those with less job experience, or whether their highest degree held was a technical diploma or a doctorate, among other factors. Study results showed that skill development was unrelated to gender, age, education level, lifetime work experience, employment tenure, and the number of prior service apprenticeships; other analyses showed the same for the amount of other job-related training the employee volunteers received during the period of the study, whether they managed or supervised others, and the length of time they had managed others. As such, employees' skill development through volunteering appears to be a robust phenomenon that generalizes to employees who differ in numerous ways as just described. Study results did highlight one volunteer characteristic that appeared to matter a great deal for skill development, and those who manage CVPs and who coordinate and manage employee volunteers have opportunity to shape it: self-efficacy about skill improvement.

Study results suggest that employers and nonprofits would be well served by taking steps to increase employee volunteers' confidence in their ability to improve their work-related skills through volunteering. Offering pre-volunteering preparation courses, as Citizen Schools does, coupled with advice for developing goal-oriented strategies that include skill use, and messages about the potential for skill development may be effective ways to bolster self-efficacy. The parties that recruit, coordinate, and manage employee volunteers could emphasize the anecdotal and other evidence for skill development through volunteering, and communicate testimonials from other employees who volunteered in the same or similar contexts. Companies and nonprofits should invest resources to measure and report the effects of volunteering on skill development, and then set goals to promote the strategic design and redesign of volunteer experiences, as other experts have suggested (Points of Light Foundation, 2005). It may also be effective for program coordinators to inform employee volunteers of other potential benefits of skill-based volunteering. For example, Muthuri et al. (2009) found that CVPs through which employees utilized key competencies generated valuable social capital through the building of social networks and relationships with other professionals, Rodell (2013) found that volunteering was linked to higher job performance, and Booth et al. (2009) found that employees who perceived greater skill acquisition reported greater job success and employer recognition.

Increasing self-efficacy about skill development may achieve other ends beyond enhancing employees' professional development. Tomkovick et al. (2008) found that, when university students believed their service-learning projects helped them develop valuable skills, they were more likely to engage in future volunteering. Based on their own findings, Booth et al. (2009) suggested that increasing skill development through volunteering will motivate employees to volunteer more often, and Jones (2010) found that employees who benefited from their employer's CVP reciprocated through extra-role performance related behaviors. In these ways, employee skill development through volunteering may create an ongoing cycle of shared value that provides benefits to employees, their employers, and the communities and causes served by committed employee volunteers.

### ETHICS STATEMENT

The study design and processes used to protect the interests and rights of the human subjects involved in this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Vermont, Committee on Human Research. All subjects provided their informed consent as per the approved protocol for this study.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

### REFERENCES


### FUNDING

This research was funded by the Nicole Maria Stata Summer Research Award.

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The researcher is grateful for the contributions of Citizen Schools (especially Rachel MacNeil, Nate Marsh, and Priscilla Cohen), all study participants, and the four corporate partners involved in this study: Google Inc., Cognizant Technology Solutions Inc., Fidelity Investments, and Cisco Systems.


**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Jones. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Illuminating the Signals Job Seekers Receive from an Employer's Community Involvement and Environmental Sustainability Practices: Insights into Why Most Job Seekers Are Attracted, Others Are Indifferent, and a Few Are Repelled

#### David A. Jones <sup>1</sup> \*, Chelsea R. Willness <sup>2</sup> and Kristin W. Heller <sup>1</sup>

*<sup>1</sup> Grossman School of Business, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA, <sup>2</sup> Human Resources and Organizational Behaviour, Edwards School of Business, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada*

Evidence shows that job seekers tend to be attracted to employers known for their corporate social responsibility (CSR), but relatively little is known about the underlying psychological processes. Moreover, the literature is silent about whether and why some job seekers are unaffected, or even repelled by, an employer's CSR. We conducted a substantive replication of recent empirical support for three signal-based mechanisms by adapting the experimental manipulation used in a prior study while employing an alternative approach to analyzing a distinctly different type of data. We also extended prior work by examining other possible explanatory mechanisms and exploring potentially negative reactions to CSR. Using signaling theory as an overarching framework, we assessed research questions and tested hypotheses grounded in theories of employee recruitment and the psychology of CSR, specifying how an employer's CSR practices send signals from which job seekers draw inferences about unknown working conditions, thereby affecting their attraction to the employer. Study participants (*N* = 108) reviewed the webpages of two hiring companies and responded to open-ended questions about each employer. We content-analyzed written responses pertaining to one employer's webpages in which we embedded an experimental manipulation of information about the employer's community involvement or its environmentally sustainable practices. The results supported hypotheses that corroborate prior evidence for the "perceived value fit" and "expected employee treatment" mechanisms, and provided some, but relatively limited, support for the "anticipated pride" mechanism. Assessment of research questions highlighted previously undiscovered signal-based mechanisms that might help explain job seekers' attraction to CSR (e.g., inferences about the employer's positive work environment and financial standing, and the nature of its employees). Results also showed that a few people were *less* attracted because of the employer's CSR practices.

#### Edited by:

*Richard Eleftherios Boyatzis, Case Western Reserve University, USA*

#### Reviewed by:

*Joann Farrell Quinn, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, USA Latha Poonamallee, Michigan Technological University, USA*

\*Correspondence:

*David A. Jones dajones@uvm.edu*

#### Specialty section:

*This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology*

Received: *23 December 2015* Accepted: *10 March 2016* Published: *31 March 2016*

#### Citation:

*Jones DA, Willness CR and Heller KW (2016) Illuminating the Signals Job Seekers Receive from an Employer's Community Involvement and Environmental Sustainability Practices: Insights into Why Most Job Seekers Are Attracted, Others Are Indifferent, and a Few Are Repelled. Front. Psychol. 7:426. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00426* Analyses among those individuals, combined with one-third of the sample who reported their attraction was unaffected by the employer's CSR, provided insights about when and why CSR fails to enhance attraction, such as when job seekers focus on other priorities, or are deeply skeptical and cynical about the employer's CSR. We discuss the implications for advancing a signal-based theory of CSR and employee recruitment, and recruitment practice.

Keywords: corporate social responsibility, signaling theory, sustainable business, community involvement, employee volunteering, employee recruitment, skepticism, cynicism

### INTRODUCTION

Research on employee recruitment has highlighted several factors that influence the extent to which job seekers are attracted to working for a given employer (Breaugh, 2008; Uggerslev et al., 2012). Among these factors, an employer's overall image and reputation is known to affect recruitment outcomes, and its image pertaining to corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as an important factor that can shape the employer's attractiveness to job seekers (Jones and Willness, 2013). CSR refers to an organization's "actions and policies that take into account stakeholders" expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance (Aguinis, 2011, p. 855). In this study we focus on two specific forms of CSR that reflect an organization's discretionary external CSR actions pertaining to community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices. Community involvement includes philanthropy and support for employee volunteerism (e.g., Jones, 2010; Grant, 2012). Environmentally sustainable practices include policies that encourage employees to conserve energy and resources, efforts to improve the environmental impact of the supply chain, and programs to encourage environmental awareness (e.g., Christmann, 2000).

Studies suggest that job seekers tend to view organizations with strong CSR practices as more attractive employment options (Bauer and Aiman-Smith, 1996; Turban and Greening, 1997; Greening and Turban, 2000; Aiman-Smith et al., 2001; Backhaus et al., 2002; Behrend et al., 2009; Tsai and Yang, 2010; Kim and Parke, 2011; Jones et al., 2014). CSR, then, can offer employers a source of competitive advantage: Studies show that by drawing more applicants, companies substantially increase their chance of hiring top performers (Ployhart, 2006; Breaugh, 2008).

Until recently, however, the underlying psychological processes that explain the effects of CSR on recruitment outcomes were poorly understood. Findings reported by Jones et al. (2014) across two studies—a controlled experiment and a field study—provide evidence for three underlying signal-based mechanisms that help explain why job seekers tend to be attracted by CSR. We conducted a substantive replication and tested hypotheses about these three mechanisms by adapting the experimental manipulation and study stimuli from Jones et al. (2014, Study 1) while employing an alternative approach to collecting and analyzing data that allowed study participants to tell us what they inferred from an employer's CSR, rather than react to measures of what we think they might infer from CSR. Our methodology allowed us to collect data that were untainted by exposing participants to survey items and measures of underlying mechanisms that might prime them to respond in ways that are artificially more consistent with their attraction to an employer known for its CSR practices.

We also designed our study to extend prior findings and advance this literature in several ways. We assessed two research questions to uncover other potential mechanisms and explore possible differences between two types of CSR practices, and ultimately contribute to the understanding of job seekers' attraction to employers known for their CSR. We also sought to inform theory and future research by addressing a major gap in the psychology of job seeker responses to CSR. Extant research is virtually silent about whether and why some job seekers are unaffected by an employer's CSR, and even repelled by it. Accordingly, we examined a third research question about whether and why some job seekers are less attracted to an employer because of its CSR.

### THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

### Job Seeker Attraction to an Employer's CSR: Three Signal-Based Mechanisms

Job seekers are motivated to understand what it's like to work for a potential employer, but they usually lack the information to do so. Signaling theory suggests job seekers use whatever information they have as signals from which they make inferences that inform their employment decisions (Rynes, 1991). Scholars have suggested that signaling theory is wellsuited for understanding job seekers' responses to CSR, as well as other recruitment attitudes and behaviors (Jones and Willness, 2013), but in the broader recruitment literature signal-based mechanisms are typically not well-specified conceptually, much less directly tested (Celani and Singh, 2010).

In one exception, Jones et al. (2014) derived hypotheses from signaling theory about three signal-based mechanisms that were tested together in the same models across two studies. These authors focused on the effects of an employer's community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices—the same two types of CSR practices on which we focused in the present study. Jones et al. found support for each of the three signal-based mechanisms, which we describe in greater detail in the sections below: CSR practices send signals about the organization's values, reputation and prestige, and pro-social orientation, which respectively inform job seekers' perceived value fit with the organization, anticipated pride as an employee, and expected treatment as an employee.

In Study 1, Jones et al. (2014) created a simulated job search context and used an experimental design in which they embedded CSR manipulations within the webpages of a fictitious employer. The authors tested whether the effects of the CSR manipulations on participants' attraction to a target employer were mediated by measures representing each of the three signalbased mechanisms. They found support for the effects of both types of CSR practices on attraction through two mechanisms when all three were tested together, and support for the third mechanism when one other particularly strong mechanism was removed from the model. In their Study 2, Jones et al. again tested mediated effects through the three signal-based mechanisms entered together in the same models, except this time using field data collected from actual job seekers. Study 2 participants were job seekers attending a job fair who completed a survey about one of the hiring companies at the job fair that they identified as one in which they were particularly interested. The authors operationalized CSR practices in two ways: job seekers' perceptions of the extent of the organization's CSR practices, and an independent measure of CSR practices based on coding the recruitment materials used by each employer present at the job fair. Across both operationalizations of CSR, they found support for mediated effects of community involvement practices through each of the three mediating mechanisms on job seekers' attraction to the hiring organization. Next, we present the rationale for our three study hypotheses after a more detailed description of each of the three signal-based mechanisms.

### Signals about an Employer's Values That Inform Job Seekers' Perceived Value Fit

At the broadest level, person-organization fit pertains to the perceived compatibility between an employee and an organization (Kristof, 1996), and fit includes the congruence between the two parties' values (Chatman, 1991). Metaanalytic evidence shows that person-organization fit is among the strongest predictors of recruiting outcomes (Chapman et al., 2005). Recruitment researchers have recognized that an organization's CSR practices send signals about its values, which likely increases its attractiveness when people perceive that these organizational values are a good fit with their own values (Turban and Greening, 1997; Greening and Turban, 2000; Aiman-Smith et al., 2001; Backhaus et al., 2002; Behrend et al., 2009). Thus, an employer's CSR actions send signals to job seekers about its organizational values, like being committed to the community or caring about reducing its negative impact on the natural environment. Signals from CSR about such values link CSR to organizational attractiveness via a signal-based mechanism of perceived value fit.

Jones et al. (2014) found support for this explanatory mechanism, which they tested in multiple ways across two studies. In their experimental design used in Study 1, they tested whether the effects of the CSR manipulations on job seekers' attraction in a simulated job search context was mediated by a direct measure of perceived value fit (Kristof, 1996). Also in Study 1, they tested an alternative operationalization of value fit using measures of individual differences pertinent to community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices. Both sets of analyses provided support for the perceived value-fit mechanism. In Study 2, their analyses of field data showed that job seekers' perceptions of community involvement, and separate analyses of independent ratings of community involvement based on the employers' recruitment materials, had indirect effects on job seeker attraction through perceived value fit. In both Studies 1 and 2, support for the perceived value fit mechanism was found while controlling for the effects through the two other hypothesized signal-based mechanisms that we soon describe. Other experimental studies on employee recruitment have found support for perceived fit when tested on its own (Kim and Parke, 2011; Gully et al., 2013).

Hypothesis 1: An employer's community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices send signals to job seekers about its organizational values from which job seekers infer perceived value fit (how well the employer's values fit with their own values).

### Signals about an Employer's Prestige That Inform Job Seekers' Anticipated Pride

An organization's reputation is affected by its CSR (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990), and reputation sends signals that can influence job seekers' perceptions about a potential employer (Cable and Turban, 2003). When an employer is known for its CSR practices, researchers have argued, it signals to job seekers that the organization is prestigious and well-regarded by others (Behrend et al., 2009). This signal, in turn, informs feelings of pride that job seekers anticipate experiencing if they were associated with the organization as one of its employees (Jones and Willness, 2013).

This signal-based mechanism of anticipated pride, which follows from a signal from CSR about the organization's prestige, is rooted in principles of social identity theory (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tajfel and Turner, 1992; Collins and Han, 2004). Individuals derive aspects of their identities through their affiliations with social groups, including the organization in which they are employed (e.g., Dutton and Dukerich, 1991), particularly when identifying with their employer enhances their self-worth (Ashforth et al., 2008). Connecting organizational prestige to anticipated pride, scholars have noted that people "feel proud of being part of a well-respected organization, as it strengthens their feelings of self-worth to bask in reflected glory" (Smidts et al., 2001, p. 1051). Thus, an organization with a strong reputation for CSR would be viewed as prestigious, and the feelings of pride that job seekers anticipate experiencing make the organization more attractive as a potential employer.

In their Study 1, Jones et al. (2014) tested whether anticipated pride mediates the effects of community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices on organizational attractiveness, and they found support for these hypothesized effects above and beyond the two other signal-based mechanisms. In Study 2, they tested the mediating role of organizational prestige (the proposed signal), rather than anticipated pride (the proposed signal-based mechanism), which was supported for the effects of the employer's community involvement. Behrend et al. (2009) likewise found support for a similar signal effect from organizational prestige, although they tested it in isolation (i.e., not in the context of other signal-based mechanisms).

Hypothesis 2: An employer's community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices send signals to job seekers about the employer's reputation and prestige from which they infer how proud they would feel as one of its employees.

### Signals about the Employer's Prosocial Orientation That Inform Job Seekers' Expected Treatment

Theory on the psychology of CSR suggests that employees view externally-directed CSR activities (e.g., community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices) as evidence that an organization is concerned about the just treatment of others (Aguilera et al., 2007). Thus, CSR signals to job seekers that the organization has a prosocial orientation: a sincere concern for the well-being of others (Grant et al., 2008). This signal subsequently informs a signal-based mechanism about expected treatment; that is, people's perceptions about how well the organization treats its employees, given its care for people in general. For job seekers, by extension, such signals inform their perceptions about how favorably they would be treated if they were to work for that organization. In turn, job seekers' expectations about being treated with dignity, respect and fairness, for example, ultimately affects their attraction.

Rupp and colleagues found that an employer's community involvement and environmental sustainability interacted with information about employee treatment to predict participants' attraction to a fictitious employer (Rupp et al., 2013). To our knowledge, however, the expected treatment mechanism has only been tested directly by Jones et al. (2014), who found support for this mechanism in their field study with respect to community involvement, and in their experimental study for both community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices after removing a particularly strong effect through anticipated pride from the model.

Hypothesis 3: An employer's community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices send signals to job seekers about the employer's prosocial orientation from which they infer how well they expect to be treated as one of its employees.

### Other Reasons Job Seekers Are Attracted: Unexplored Signals Sent by CSR

Researchers have speculated about other potential signals from CSR that might affect inferences that job seekers draw that ultimately influence their attraction to the employer. An employer's CSR may signal that it can afford to invest in discretionary environmental and social practices, from which job seekers may infer that the organization is financially stable, has good future growth prospects, or pays above average wages (Jones and Willness, 2013). Other signals might be about the type of people who work in the organization (Jones et al., 2014) or the overall work climate (Zhang and Gowan, 2012). We sought to extend Jones et al. (2014) by investigating these and other potentially relevant signals from CSR.

Research Question 1: Does an employer's community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices send other, previously unstudied, signals to job seekers that might plausibly affect their attraction to an employer?

### Differences between Community Involvement and Environmental Sustainability

Researchers have suggested that the nature of CSR practices may influence the relative strength of their effects through different signal-based mechanisms (Jones and Willness, 2013). Based on their results, Jones et al. (2014) speculated that an employer's community involvement may have relatively stronger effects through the anticipated pride mechanism, as such practices may be viewed as more discretionary and less directly linked to the "bottom line" compared to pro-environmental practices that often produce meaningful cost savings, thereby rendering community involvement more commendable and prestigeworthy. These authors also suggested that the expected treatment mechanism may be stronger for an employer's community involvement because it sends signals about the employer's prosocial orientation based on its treatment of people in the community, which logically extends to its own people (i.e., employees) more so than would signals based on its treatment of the natural environment.

Research Question 2: Do the signals and associated inferences job seekers draw differ based on information about an employer's community involvement vs. its environmentally sustainable practices?

## Potential Negative Reactions to CSR Practices

Researchers have urged scholars to explore whether some job seekers react negatively to an employer's CSR practices (Willness and Jones, 2013), however the literature is all but silent as to whether and why some job seekers are unaffected or even repelled by an employer's CSR. Willness and Jones (2013) asserted that negative reactions may occur when job seekers question the credibility of CSR claims (i.e., greenwashing) or the benevolent nature of the employer's underlying motives (i.e., attributing purely self-interested motives for its CSR practices). These authors suggested that skepticism and negative reactions are more likely to occur when job seekers learn about the employer's CSR through media it owns and controls, such as press releases from its public relations department. Extending this logic to corporate websites, some job seekers may be skeptical of CSR information presented on an employer's webpages because the company created those messages (compared to, for example, learning about its CSR through its inclusion on a third party's list of top corporate citizens). Thus, some job seekers might discount or be repelled by an employer's descriptions of its CSR when they view its practices or the employer's underlying motives with suspicion and skepticism. Also plausible is that some job seekers are repelled by CSR because they hold values in opposition to any attempts by for-profit companies to address societal ills or environmental challenges.

Research Question 3: Are some job seekers less attracted to an employer because of its community involvement and environmentally sustainable practices, and, if so, why might this occur?

### MATERIALS AND METHODS

## Participants

Study participants were 108 undergraduate students who were enrolled in one of three business courses at a university in the Northeastern United States. The participants included 47 females and 61 males, most of whom were in their second (32.41%), third (45.37%), or fourth (20.37%) year of their undergraduate degree program. On average, they were 20.57 years of age (SD = 1.36) and had 4.05 years of work experience (SD = 2.40). Slightly more than half (n = 59, 54.63%) indicated they were looking for a new employment position at the time of their participation, and three-quarters indicated they intended to seek a new employment position within the next 6 months (n = 81, 75.00%). Among the 56 participants who were employed at the time of the study (51.85%), their average tenure with their employer was 1.68 years (SD = 1.59) and they worked 18.49 h (SD = 11.51) per week.

## Study Procedure, Employer Web Pages, and Experimental Manipulations

The three course professors invited students to participate in the study in return for a 1% bonus applied toward their final course grade, and they instructed interested students to email one of the authors. We randomly assigned interested students to an experimental condition and provided a link to the corresponding version of the confidential online survey. Upon accessing the survey, participants were informed about what participating in the study would entail, and that it would require about 30 min of their time. After they provided demographic information, we asked participants to create a unique study ID number that they could then give to their professors so they could allocate the bonus credit after verifying the validity of the students' participation using a list of ID numbers we provided. This process allowed us to maintain anonymity by avoiding the collection of participants' names or other identifying information.

Participants were instructed to review the webpages of two fictitious apparel companies that were hiring in the local area. The webpages were modeled after those used in Study 1 of Jones et al. (2014). The pages were designed to be realistic, and were formatted in a professional manner, including pictures, logos, links to other pages, and the type of information that would be found on a real employer's webpages. A similar amount of information was presented on each company's webpages. Three pages were presented for each employer that comprised general information about the organization, such as the company's history, its business principles, and its locations that included operations in the area in which study participants lived. Each employer's webpages also included a fourth page where several available job postings were advertised in a variety of functional roles relevant to the business student participants, including retail sales, marketing, product design, and human resources. We asked participants to "pretend as though you are currently seeking a job" and to "act as though you are interested in the kinds of employment positions they have open."

Participants first reviewed the webpages for a company called Cotton One, which we included only to deflect attention from the main focus of the study and to create a more realistic simulation of a job seeker's consideration of multiple potential employment options. Our analyses focused on participants' reactions to the webpages of a second employer called "Active Style." This target employer's webpages included a fifth webpage titled "We Care." On this page we embedded a two-level experimental manipulation: the presence of information about the employer's Community Involvement (CI condition; n = 54) or business practices that are considered to reflect Environmental Sustainability (ES condition; n = 54). We used the same tone, layout, and wording for the "We Care" webpages in the CI and ES conditions (see the Appendix). For the CI condition, the "We Care" page contained information regarding Active Style's philanthropy and volunteerism program; for the ES condition, the "We Care" page contained information about their ecological philanthropy and a recycling program.

After participants reviewed each company's webpages they were asked to respond to a few filler questions about their attraction to each potential employer. After repeating this process for each company, and before presenting the manipulation check items, participants responded to two open-ended questions: "Do you think the information on the We Care page affected your desire to work at Active Style? Why or why not?" and "Does the information on the We Care page suggest anything to you about Active Style or what it would be like to work there?." Participants were encouraged to take a moment to think about their responses and to write as much as they wished, and we emphasized that "this information is important to our study." Participants then responded to two manipulation check items on a Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree): "Active Style tries to contribute positively to the communities in which it does business," and "Active Style makes an effort to reduce its impact on the environment."

## RESULTS

### Content Analysis Protocol

The third author, who was blind to experimental condition, conducted an initial content analysis of written responses to the two open-ended questions about the "We Care" webpage using a grounded theory approach (Glasser and Strauss, 1967). Also while blind to experimental condition, the first author reviewed and refined the results of the first round of coding, and conducted all coding of a subset of cases pertinent to Research Question 3. We first developed an a priori coding protocol based on existing theory and research that led us to include specific categories pertaining to the three signals and associated mechanisms studied by Jones et al. (2014): organizational values and perceived value fit; the employer's reputation and prestige, and anticipated pride; and the employer's prosocial orientation and expected employee treatment. We also included coded categories based on speculation about potential signals from CSR with respect to the company's financial standing and compensation levels (Jones and Willness, 2013), the type of employees who work in the organization (Jones et al., 2014) and the overall work climate (Zhang and Gowan, 2012). During the coding process we added categories to code statements that reflected potentially new signal-based mechanisms that may affect job seekers' attraction to an employer known for its CSR (e.g., that employees who already work there share their employer's values), and recoded all previously coded responses for any references to the new category. We also coded for statements containing any explicit references to having negative reactions to the CI or ES information.

We adopted a stringent approach to coding the information provided by participants, such that all coding reported herein is based on coding written statements that contained explicit references that pertained to the subject of a given category, while excluding statements that only implied the subject of a given category. For example, a statement that we coded as an explicit reference to Active Style's specific values in relation to community involvement was, "They care about helping the community and volunteering"; a statement that we did not code due to its lack of explicitness was, "The We Care page did seem more community friendly." We later note a single exception in which we coded statements that clearly suggested a sense of skepticism without explicitly using that term or a synonym.

### Manipulation Checks

Analyses showed the manipulation of CI vs. ES information on the "We Care" page functioned as intended. Participants in the CI condition rated the CI manipulation check item significantly higher than in the ES condition: t(106) = 4.24, p < 0.001 (M = 5.78, SD = 0.86 vs. M = 5.07, SD = 0.87). As expected, the reverse was true for ratings on the ES manipulation check item: t(106) = −7.09, p < 0.001 (M = 4.56, SD = 1.02 vs. M = 5.93, SD = 0.99).

Our tacit assumption was that some study participants would become more attracted to the target employer after reading its "We Care" webpage containing either CI or ES content. To assess this assumption we analyzed their written responses to the first open-ended question: "Do you think the information on the We Care page affected your desire to work at Active Style? Why or why not?" In the CI condition, 35 participants (64.81%) explicitly claimed they were more attracted to the prospect of working for Active Style as a result of the CI information. One of these participants wrote, for example, "I definitely think the information on the 'We Care' page affected my desire to work at Active Style. I mean it is a great attribute to the company that they would do volunteer work." A similar proportion of participants in the ES condition claimed the same (n = 34, 62.96%), as reflected in this comment: "The information portion in 'We Care' was one of the main reasons I rated the company above the other. It was important to me that they felt environmental action was important and they were taking steps to reduce their waste and consumption." Thus, across both conditions, almost two-thirds of the participants claimed the information on the "We Care" page enhanced their attraction to the employer.

### Hypotheses Testing

The results of the content analysis are shown in **Table 1** with respect to Hypotheses 1 through 3 about the three signal-based mechanisms supported in Jones et al. (2014). Reported in **Table 1** are frequency counts and percentages reflecting the number of participants in each condition whose responses to the two open-ended questions included one or more explicit reference(s) pertinent to each coded category. The results for each coded category are organized within the three signal-based mechanisms that are labeled in the table using italics. In reporting the results for each italicized mechanism, we only counted a participant once in the event that his or her responses were coded in multiple categories reported for that mechanism.

Included in all tables are two representative quotes taken from written statements coded within each category, where applicable. Each quote is numbered for ease of reference herein, with the first digit reflecting the table number followed by a decimal and a number that reflects its order in the table (e.g., quote "#1.1" refers to the first quote listed in **Table 1**). In the results below, we refer the reader to illustrative quotes listed in the tables using the corresponding reference numbers in parentheses, and in most cases these references do not reflect an exhaustive list of coded comments, as reflected in the frequency counts displayed in the tables.

Hypothesis 1 was that CI and ES information sends signals to job seekers about the employer's organizational values, from which they infer how well those values fit with their own values (i.e., perceived value fit). **Table 1** shows that support was found for Hypothesis 1, such that 50% and 61% of participants in the CI and ES conditions, respectively, made explicit references pertaining to the perceived value fit mechanism. Most of those participants referred to the employer's specific values pertaining to CI or ES (#1.1, #1.2), and some people mentioned their own values pertaining to CI or ES (#1.3, #1.4). Providing the most direct support for this hypothesis, eight participants explicitly mentioned they were attracted by the fit between the employer's values and ethics with their own (#1.3, #1.4, #1.5, #1.6). For instance, a participant not quoted in **Table 1** wrote, "Yes it affected my desire to work there. The information on that page allowed me to connect with the company. I felt like I knew something about their values and ethics, and because I have the same ethics I would want to work there more."

Hypothesis 2 was that an employer's CI and ES sends signals about the employer's reputation and prestige, which informs job seekers' beliefs about how proud they would feel to be one of its employees. **Table 1** shows that we found some, but relatively limited, support for Hypothesis 2. Two participants in the CI condition wrote explicit statements regarding feeling proud about working for the employer in question (#1.7). A participant quoted in **Table 1** wrote, "It is a place I would feel proud to work for. All their emphasis on philanthropy and the community is something I like to see in companies" (#1.8). Three other participants wrote statements reflecting a belief that the target employer was "respectable" (#1.9), or the importance of other

#### TABLE 1 | Frequencies and Percentages of Responses about an Employer's Community Involvement (CI) or Environmentally Sustainable (ES) Practices: Explicit Comments Pertaining to Three Signal-Based Mechanisms.


*Frequency counts and percentages reflect the number of participants in each experimental condition who wrote one or more explicit statements that we coded in each category based on responses to two open-ended questions (e.g., Question 1: "Do you think the information on the We Care page affected your desire to work at Active Style? Why or why not?"). Results in italics are reported for each of the three signal-based mechanisms studied by Jones et al. (2014), and reflect the cumulative frequency counts from the associated categories while counting any given participant only once.*

people respecting the employer because of its CI or ES practices (#1.10). Also relevant to this hypothesis, albeit not providing direct support for it, five participants noted the employer appears to care about its image and reputation (#1.11, #1.12).

Hypothesis 3 was that CI and ES send signals to job seekers about the employer's prosocial orientation, from which they infer how favorably the employer likely treats its employees. **Table 1** shows that 50 and 43% of participants in the CI and ES conditions, respectively, made explicit statements reflecting signals about the employer's generalized prosocial orientation, their resulting inferences about expecting that the employer treats its employees well, or both. Most of those participants commented that the CI or ES information suggested that the employer was pro-socially motivated in a general sense (#1.13, #1.14), and a subset of them framed it as the employer cares about more than just generating profit (#1.15, #1.16). Providing support for Hypothesis 3, about 30% of the participants in each condition inferred from CI or ES that the employer likely treats its employees well (#1.17, #1.18). The link between signals about the employer's prosocial orientation and the resulting inference about favorable employee treatment was reflected in comments from seven participants in each condition (#1.17, #1.18, #1.19, #1.20), as illustrated in this comment from a participant not quoted in **Table 1**: "I got a sense that if they care for future generations they would also really care about their employees as well. It gave me a feeling that they would be more concerned for my well-being."

### Assessment of Research Questions

**Table 2** displays frequency counts, percentages, and representative quotes pertaining to Research Question 1 about evidence for other potential and previously untested mechanisms. **Table 2** suggests that other potentially important signal-based mechanisms might exist. First, among 20 participants, an employer's CI and ES appeared to send signals that informed inferences about a positive work environment (#2.1, #2.2; this category did not include coded statements reported in **Table 1** about the employer caring about and treating employees well). Other potential signals from CI and ES were suggested by comments about the employer's positive financial standing (#2.3, #2.4), opportunities within the company (#2.5), and the employer's future-oriented focus (#2.6, #2.7). Comments from 12 people suggested they inferred from CI and ES that the company's employees are cohesive and share similar values (#2.8, #2.9), as well as other characteristics of its employees and the potential to form friendships (#2.10, #2.11). For instance,

TABLE 2 | Frequencies and Percentages of Responses about an Employer's Community Involvement (CI) or Environmentally Sustainable (ES) Practices: Evidence for other Signal-Based Mechanisms that Potentially Enhance Job Seeker Attraction.


*Frequency counts and percentages reflect the number of participants in each experimental condition who wrote one or more explicit statements that we coded in each category based on responses to two open-ended questions.*

a participant not quoted in **Table 2** wrote, "It suggests that the employees are considerate people who care about the environment and others. They seem like they would be friendly people who are enjoyable to work with."

Research Question 2 focused on potential differences between CI and ES in terms of the signals people receive and the inferences they draw from them. As seen in **Table 1**, no clear evidence was found for CI-ES differences with respect to the three hypothesized signal-based mechanisms, although a trend emerged for the anticipated pride mechanism, such that a greater number of relevant comments were made by people in the CI condition. The results in **Table 2** about other possible signalbased mechanisms likewise show relatively little evidence for any CI-ES differences, with the possible exception of inferences about the company being adaptable and future-oriented for which all five comments came from the ES condition (#2.6, #2.7).

Research Question 3 was about whether and why some job seekers might be less attracted to an employer because of its CI or ES. In the CI condition, 17 people claimed the "We Care" page had no effect on their attraction (31.48%), and two people reported they were less attracted as a result of that information (3.70%). One of the latter two appeared to respond negatively due to a misunderstanding that his or her volunteering on behalf of the company would occur outside of the normal work hours on his or her free time (#3.15). The other participant who claimed to be less attracted due to the CI information wrote, "Yes, I thought it looked like it was just a load of BS to try and enhance their image" (#3.16). Results from the ES condition were remarkably similar to the CI condition: 19 participants reported that the employer's ES had no effect on their attraction (35.19%), and one participant claimed it made him or her less attracted (1.85%), writing, "It seems like the slogan is only there to attract prospective employees to apply and to attract potential customers into the target market" (#3.27). The answer to Research Question 3, then, is that only a small proportion of the 108 participants (n = 3, 2.78%) reported being less attracted to the employer because of its CI or ES, and the two participants who correctly interpreted that information expressed skepticism and cynicism about the employer's motives.

We conducted additional analyses to inform reasons why an employer's CSR might be ineffectual or counterproductive in enhancing job seeker attraction. We combined the 36 participants—exactly one-third of the sample—who reported that the CI or ES information had no effect on their attraction with the three people who claimed they became less attracted to create a subsample for these additional analyses (n = 19 in the CI condition, and n = 20 in the ES condition).

**Table 3** displays frequency counts, percentages, and representative quotes pertaining to these analyses among this subsample (n = 39). Presented in the first section of the table under the "Signals Sent" heading are results based only on responses to the second open ended question about whether and what signals participants might have received from the CI or ES information. Results show that 13 people (33% of the subsample) claimed they received no signals about the work environment or the company more broadly (#3.1, #3.2), and three others (8%) described negative signals (#3.3, #3.4). Intriguingly, 23 people in the subsample (59%) claimed they received positive signals (including a few signals that were somewhere in between being positive and neutral in their tone), as illustrated in quotes #3.5 and #3.6. Despite receiving positive signals, 22 of these participants claimed their attraction was unaffected by the employer's CI or ES, and one other participant claimed to be less attracted as a result of the employer's CI practices.

To understand why a little more than one-third of the total sample claimed the employer's CI or ES did not enhance their attraction, or even detracted from it, we coded responses to both open-ended questions among the subsample described above, and the results are presented in **Table 3** under the second heading ("Reasons CI or ES Did Not Enhance Attraction"). Eight people, or 20.5% of the subsample, described a general lack of fit with the advertised positions or the employer (e.g., #3.7, #3.8). Three others stated that compensation or pay was a more important consideration (#3.9, #3.10, #3.11), and all three were among the six participants who listed other priorities, such as how much they enjoyed their job role (#3.9, #3.11) and promotion opportunities (#3.10). A seventh person referred to unspecified priorities (#3.12). Two participants stated their belief that the employer's investments in ES might detract from its profits or success (#3.13, #3.14).

As shown in **Table 3**, the most prevalent theme among the stated reasons for not being attracted by CI or ES was a sense of skepticism and cynicism. Specifically, comments from 13 people—one-third of the subsample—did not include explicit references to skepticism, but nevertheless suggested they were skeptical and cynical about the employer's CI or ES practices. As stated by one individual who is not quoted in **Table 3**, "In a job I look for a company that cares about its employees and the environment, etc.; however, I feel like most companies say that. It would've been better had there been pictures with their employees so I could picture myself working there (doing something good)."

We further coded the responses from these 13 people and identified seven interrelated sources of skepticism and cynicism that are listed under the third heading of **Table 3**: "Factors Affecting Skepticism and Cynicism about CI or ES." First, three people commented that they needed to see or experience the employer's CI or ES to believe it (#3.18, #3.19). Second, three individuals wrote comments suggesting that they would need more detail on the We Care page for them to draw meaningful inferences from the employer's CI or ES (#3.20, #3.21). A third apparent source of skepticism and cynicism was rooted in one participant's prior experience with an employer's greenwashing (#3.22). A fourth source was suggested by one person who appeared skeptical because he or she felt the CI practices were unrelated to the employer's business model (#3.23). Fifth, three people seemed to believe that the employer's positive social or environmental impact was too small or not distinctive enough to affect their attraction (#3.24, #3.25). A sixth source of skepticism and cynicism was expressed by six participants who questioned the nature of the motives they attributed to the employer's investments in CI or ES. For instance, participants questioned whether the employer's ES was motivated by genuine concern vs. the pursuit of profits (#3.26), by a desire to enhance their

#### TABLE 3 | Frequencies and Percentages of Responses about an Employer's Community Involvement (CI) or Environmentally Sustainable (ES) Practices among Participants who Reported No Effect (n = 36) or a Negative Effect (n = 3) on their Attraction.


*(Continued)*

#### TABLE 3 | Continued


slogan is only there to attract prospective employees to apply and to attract potential customers into the target market. All firms claim to care 2 (10.53%) 3 (15.00%) #3.28: I think every company would write that on their website. #3.29: I honestly didn't pay too much attention to the "we care" page because I feel that is a much more common thing to include on websites as many companies are going green and giving back. Because of this many of these statements don't seem

as personal.

*Frequency counts and percentages reflect the number of participants in each experimental condition who wrote one or more explicit statements that we coded in each category based on responses to two open-ended questions, except for results under the "Signals Sent" heading that are based only on responses to Question 2: "Does the information on the We Care page suggest anything to you about Active Style or what it would be like to work there?".*

image (#3.16), or to attract customers (#3.17, #3.27). A seventh apparent source of skepticism and cynicism was communicated by five participants who asserted that many companies now claim to be socially or environmentally responsible (#3.28, #3.29).

## DISCUSSION

We designed and conducted this study for two overall purposes. First, we tested hypotheses as part of a substantive replication to assess the generalizability of three signal-based mechanisms supported in recent research (Jones et al., 2014) while using an alternative study design, data type, and analytic approach. Our study deign allowed study participants to tell us the reasons they were attracted by an employer's CSR, rather than potentially priming them through survey items used to measure specific hypothesized mechanisms. Second, we sought to advance theory and research in this area by assessing research questions to uncover plausible yet previously unidentified signalbased mechanisms, explore possible differences between CI vs. ES in the underlying mechanisms involved, and illuminate potential reasons why some job seekers might be less attracted to an employer because of its CI or ES. Next we discuss the implications of our findings, study limitations, and implications for recruitment practice.

### Evidence for Three Previously Established Signal-Based Mechanisms

We found corroborating evidence for two mechanisms shown in previous research (Jones et al., 2014) to explain the effects of an

organization's CSR on job seekers' attraction to a hiring company among approximately one-half to two-thirds of the sample with respect to an employer's CI or ES practices. Our content analysis of responses to open-ended questions suggested that information about these types of CSR practices sent signals about the organization's specific values that informed participants' inferences about perceived value fit, and signals about the employer's prosocial orientation that informed participants' inferences about the expected treatment of employees. We found some, but relatively less, supporting evidence for the anticipated pride mechanism, despite its emergence as a particularly strong mechanism in the Jones et al. (2014) studies. A possible explanation is the advertised positions were for entry level jobs, and the younger-aged participants were less inclined to consider these jobs as long-term career-oriented positions for which the employer's reputation would be relatively more important.

#3.27: It's a growing company that may or may not be successful. It seems like the

Another explanation for the modest support found for signals about an employer's prestige and resulting inferences about anticipated pride is that these psychological processes operate outside of people's conscious awareness. If so, support for this mechanism may only be found when people are primed to consider it through the completion of survey items about anticipated pride or organizational prestige, as in Study 1 and Study 2 of Jones et al. (2014), respectively. Consistent with this possibility, participants in Jones et al.'s Study 1 reviewed webpage content for Active Style and for two other employers that was very similar to the materials we used in the current study. After those participants completed items about anticipated pride and other measures for all three employers, they were asked to rank order and justify their top employment option. Among the majority of participants who ranked the target company as their top choice, 11 and 14% of participants in the CI and ES conditions, respectively, made references to the employer's prestige and reputation, in contrast to the relative lack of similar references found in the present study. The same patterns of results, however, also suggest another possibility—the employer prestige-anticipated pride mechanism may not explain the CSRattraction relationship at all, and the prior evidence found in the Jones et al. studies, as well as in Behrend et al. (2009), could reflect an artifact of people being primed to respond accordingly when asked to complete the associated measures. Although we think the first of these two possibilities is the more likely explanation, further research is needed to investigate the validity of the employer prestige and anticipate pride signal-based mechanism. Given Willness and Jones's (2013) assertion that the source of CSR information affects how people perceive it, we suspect that this signal-based mechanism would be stronger when an employer's webpages include explicit references to third-party endorsements and honors received for its CI or ES practices.

## Evidence for Other Signal-Based Mechanisms and CI vs. ES Differences

We explored whether other previously unstudied signalbased mechanisms might hold promise for extending the understanding of why job seekers tend to be attracted by CSR. Our findings suggest that some job seekers may be attracted to employers known for their CI and ES due to signals that lead them to make inferences about the characteristics and shared values of the employees who work there, the potential to form new friendships, the employer's positive financial standing, opportunities for employees within the company, and the employer's adaptability and future orientation. The most common signal-based inference in our data, aside from those relating to the three hypothesized mechanisms, was about the likely existence of a positive work environment.

These findings highlight potential signal-based mechanisms that should be tested in future studies to ultimately provide a basis to inform and develop a signal-based theory of CSR and recruitment. Scholars have observed that recruitment researchers who draw on signaling theory usually do not directly test, or even delineate, the precise signals job seekers are proposed to receive from a given information source, and rarely do researchers describe how those signals are linked to the inferences job seekers are proposed to draw from them (Celani and Singh, 2010). We speculate that the inferences observed in this study about the employer's positive work environment and opportunities for employees are likely based on signals from CSR about the employer's prosocial orientation, and that inferences about employee characteristics most likely follow from signals about the employer's specific values pertaining to their CSR practices. We further speculate that inferences about the employer's future orientation are based on signals from CSR about the employer's focus on multiple stakeholders, and that inferences about its financial stability are based on signals about the employer's presumably discretionary expenditures to support these CSR practices.

We also explored potential differences in the signal-based mechanisms associated with an employer's CI vs. ES practices, and we did not find clear evidence for any differences. Two trends emerged in these data, however, that we believe are worthy of future investigation. First, consistent with Jones et al.'s (2014) speculation, people in the CI condition made four comments about anticipated pride and the employer's respectability vs. only one comment in the ES condition. Although the low number of comments prohibits us from inferring that a CI-ES difference on the anticipated pride mechanism truly exists outside these data, we think this difference is quite plausible and it should be explored in future research. Second, all five comments that were coded as inferences about the company being adaptable and future-oriented came from the ES condition. This possible difference should be explored in future research, especially given that it is a logical leap to make this inference based on a firm's investments in environmental sustainability in the context of recent media attention and global action to combat the effects of climate change.

## Study Limitations

A potential limitation of our study was its reliance on youngeraged student participants who may hold more favorable attitudes toward CSR compared to the larger job seeker population. While this may limit the generalizability of our results, our younger sample reflects an important demographic group that represents a large proportion of new labor market entrants. Indeed, many employers actively tailor their recruitment messages toward student-aged populations (Dineen and Noe, 2009). Notwithstanding the practical relevance of our findings to recruiting organizations, we repeat a call to conduct CSRrecruitment studies using diverse samples, given that the majority of extant research has used student-based samples as we did (Jones and Willness, 2013).

Given our focus on analyzing written responses to openended questions, another possible limitation is that the proportion of participants who claimed to be more attracted by the CSR information is inflated due to socially desirable responding. Notably, however, the methodology ensured complete anonymity and confidentiality, which we highlighted in the instructions. Moreover, the support we found for two signal-based mechanisms is consistent with theory and findings based on quantitative data as we have described. Our data is also limited by the capacity of individuals' self-insights, and their motivation and ability to accurately translate their meta-cognitions to written responses.

### When Job Seekers Are Unaffected or Repelled by CSR: An Agenda for Future Research

To our knowledge, this study represents the first examination in the CSR-recruitment literature that addresses questions about whether and why CSR might "go wrong." We believe this is a particularly important topic, both theoretically and practically, for future inquiry. Common sense suggests that not every job seeker will respond positively to an employer's CI or ES,

given variability in people's values and beliefs pertaining to such practices. However, our findings point to other, more nuanced, reasons why one-third of our sample reported that their attraction was unaffected by the employer's CI or ES, and a few others reported being less attracted as a result of those practices.

Some of the stated reasons for their lack of CSR-based attraction are somewhat predictable, as some participants described a general lack of fit, or other priorities, such as their compensation or the nature of the job role. Specific to the discretionary nature of many CSR investments, however, were concerns raised by two people about the employer's ES potentially detracting from its profits or success. Researchers should study the contexts in which such an inference is more or less likely, such as the effects of an employer explicitly stating that the firm's ES practices are central to its strategy and revenue generation.

Other statements reflected a common theme among people who claimed they were not attracted by the employer's CSR: they were skeptical and cynical about its CI and ES claims. Consistent with Willness and Jones's (2013)suggestion that job seekers might react negatively when they question the credibility of CSR claims or suspect greenwashing, one-third of those who claimed they were not more attracted by the employer's CSR made statements that pointed to seven plausible inter-related sources of skepticism and cynicism. We believe this to be a particularly fertile area for future research that has considerable potential to advance theory and inform recruitment practice.

Our results suggest that some people were skeptical and cynical about CSR because they witnessed greenwashing in the past, or were reluctant to give much credence to the employer's claims without having witnessed or experienced the CI or ES practices themselves. A third apparent source of skepticism was communicated by people who claimed they needed more detail about these practices before they could draw meaningful inferences from them. Researchers should seek to identify factors that amplify or mitigate these apparent sources of skepticism and cynicism, and statements made by some non-skeptics suggest a few plausible factors for researchers to consider. One participant's comments point to employee testimonials as a potential remedy to skepticism and cynicism, writing "I think reviews by former employees or current employees is the best ways to learn about working there." Statements from others highlight the potential value of communicating what Du et al. (2010) call CSR Commitment (i.e., tangible investments in CSR practices) and CSR Impact (i.e., quantifiable indicators of the social and environmental impact of those investments). For instance, one non-skeptic wrote, "The 'We Care' page was clearly laid out to emphasize important parts of their role in society. It didn't just say 'we are involved' or anything along those lines. It actually talked about it, and let the reader know the logistics." Another non-skeptic wrote, "It shows that the company's name actually reflects its true feeling about the environment and is not just used as a marketing slogan. Also, showing specific information about "how" they care is appealing to me." Although the information provided on the We Care page about CSR commitment and CSR impact was insufficient to override skepticism and cynicism among some participants, it did appear to be sufficient for others, such as one participant who wrote, "While it's possible the company could be over-exaggerating their claims, the page makes them seem genuinely friendly and considerate. I think it would be a good environment to work in." In addition to advancing theory, studies that delineate the effects of employee testimonials, and indicators of CSR commitment and impact hold promise for providing tangible guidance to hiring companies and their recruiters.

Du et al. (2010) also emphasize the importance of managing stakeholders' attributed motives for a company's investments in CSR. Consistent with this assertion, several participants made comments suggesting that their beliefs about the employer's motives for investing in CI or ES represented another apparent source of skepticism and cynicism. These participants attributed self-interested motives to the employer, suggesting it only engaged in CSR to attract customers and employees, or as part of its broader pursuit of profit. Willness and Jones (2013) asserted that job seekers' skepticism about CSR claims might be reduced through recruitment messages and information that demonstrates the benevolent intentions and values-based motives behind the employer's CSR practices. This suggestion is supported by research on attributed motives for CSR, and so too is the notion that stakeholder respond positively to transparent messages in which firms communicate their longer-term strategic motives and efforts to manager stakeholder relationships through CSR (see Du et al., 2010). Doing the latter may help to combat a fifth apparent source of skepticism and cynicism observed in this study: a perceived lack of connection between the employer's CSR practices and its core business model (i.e., CSR Fit, Du et al., 2010).

Other seemingly skeptical and cynical participants described the employer's positive social or environmental impact as being too small and not distinctive enough to warrant their attention. Researchers should assess how the extent and distinctiveness of an employer's social and environmental impact might influence job seekers' skepticism and cynicism about its practices, and in turn, their attraction to the employer. A related seventh source of skepticism and cynicism observed in this study was reflected in several comments in which the employer was characterized as being no different than the majority of companies that now claim to be socially or environmentally responsible. This framing of the employer's CSR as a public relations ploy was implicitly echoed by a non-skeptical participant who suggested the employer's ES communicated little else to them beyond its environmental values given the information source, writing, "It doesn't really tell much about the morals and feelings of the company as a whole, rather than what one department has written about their philanthropy." This latter comment is consistent with speculation by Willness and Jones (2013) who opined that negative reactions to CSR are more likely to occur when job seekers learn about the employer's practice through media it owns and controls, such as its website, but this assertion remains an untested empirical question.

Taken together, our findings about people's apparent skepticism and cynicism highlight a number of questions for future research. We enthusiastically repeat a call for more research on negative reactions to CSR, and on skepticism and cynicism more specifically (Willness and Jones, 2013), which we believe hold great promise for advancing theory and informing practice in this area.

### Other Implications for Recruitment Practice

For recruitment practice, our results suggest that the net effect of leveraging CSR practices in employee recruitment is clearly a positive one from the perspective of a hiring organization. The majority of our participants—about two-thirds of them reported they were more attracted to the employer as a result of its CI or ES, and we believe that understanding the underlying mechanisms involved can provide tangible guidance for recruitment practice.

Recruitment messages can be designed to highlight signals and the resulting inferences job seekers draw from them with regard to organizational values and inferences about perceived value fit (e.g., "We strive to grow our profits like any other business, but we believe we can do so while being a responsible member of our community, reducing our impact on the natural environment, and treating our employees and customers with the respect they deserve"). Recruitment messages can also highlight the prosocial orientation-expected treatment mechanism (e.g., "Just like we care about the people in our community, we care about the people who work here—we strive to set the gold standard for how employers should treat their people"). And, to the extent that the employer prestige and anticipated pride mechanism matters, recruiters can leverage that mechanism, too (e.g., "Our employees are proud of our sustainability efforts and we take time to celebrate the awards and honors we receive for these practices"). In sum, organizations' CSR practices communicate more than the

### REFERENCES


practices themselves; our study suggests that, as a result of CSR, job seekers make a variety of inferences about an employer and its internal working conditions, and recruitment professionals have opportunity to leverage CSR practices to enhance applicant attraction and improve an organization's ability to identify and hire high performing employees.

### ETHICS STATEMENT

The study design and processes used to protect the interests and rights of the human subjects involved in this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Vermont, Committee on Human Research. All subjects provided their informed consent as per the approved protocol for this study.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

DJ contributed via conceptualization, writing, overseeing data collection, coding the data, and analyses. CW contributed via conceptualization and writing. KH contributed via conceptualization, data collection, and coding the data.

### FUNDING

This research was funded in part by the Nicole Maria Stata Summer Research Award awarded to the first author, and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Standard Research Grant (# 410-2010-2100) awarded to the second author with the first author listed as Collaborator.


Psychology, 2nd Edn., eds M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press), 399–444.


**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Jones, Willness and Heller. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

### APPENDIX: WEBPAGE CONTENT ABOUT AN EMPLOYER'S COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT OR ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES

### Community Involvement Condition

At Active Style, we are committed to contributing to the communities we touch. We pride ourselves on being an industry leader with a number of cutting edge programs designed to contribute to our communities. When our customers buy Active Style clothing and apparel, they are not just wearing great clothes—they're wearing clothes that reflect our shared values about supporting our community.

### Community Philanthropy

We believe that business should be about more than just making money—we believe it is our responsibility to consider our impact on our communities in all the decisions we make. Since 2001, we've donated 2% of our annual after tax revenues to non-profit organizations, such as the United Way and local food banks.

### Employee Volunteering

Through our ActiveVolunteerTM program, we help organize our employees to volunteer in non-profit organizations. Our employees serve various nonprofits, such as Habitat for Humanity and AIDS Walk. For three years running, the percentage of employees who volunteer through the program has increased by 10–13%. Based on the recommendations of a 2008 employee task force, we started a Clothes for Kids program through which we match each article of clothing our employees donate by donating a comparable article of Active Style clothing.

### Environmentally Sustainable Practices Condition

At Active Style, we are committed to our environmental sustainability principles. We pride ourselves on being an industry leader with a number of cutting edge environmentally-friendly practices and programs. When our customers buy Active Style clothing and apparel, they are not just wearing great clothes they're wearing clothes that reflect our shared values about protecting our environment.

### Eco"logical" Philanthropy

We believe that business should be about more than just making money—we believe it is our responsibility to promote environmental awareness and to consider our impact on the environment in all the decisions we make. Since 2001, we've donated 2% of our annual after tax revenues to eco-friendly organizations, such as the Sierra Club and Care2.

### Employee-Driven Sustainability

Through our EcoActionTM program our employees lead the way by creating and implementing creative programs, which have resulted in an 11% reduction of non-recycling waste company-wide in financial year 2010. For three years running, we have reduced our energy consumption by 10–13%. In 2008, we implemented three recommendations developed by our employee task force on eco-protection. We now use only recycled paper throughout the company, all meeting rooms have been converted to be "paperless," and all offices participate in "energyfree" weekends where we close the offices and turn off and unplug all non-essential computers and equipment.

# Turn It Off: An Action Research Study of Top Management Influence on Energy Conservation in the Workplace

#### Sally V. Russell<sup>1</sup> \*, Alice Evans<sup>2</sup> , Kelly S. Fielding<sup>3</sup> and Christopher Hill<sup>4</sup>

<sup>1</sup> Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, <sup>2</sup> Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, <sup>3</sup> School of Communication and Arts, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, <sup>4</sup> Mater Health Services, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

This paper reports the results of an intervention study that aimed to encourage workplace energy conservation behavior by office-based employees. Taking a coproduction approach we worked with the participating organization to design and implement an intervention that used the influence of top management commitment and prompts to encourage workplace energy reduction. Whilst past research has shown top management is related to workplace pro-environmental behavior, this study extends this work by examining a field-based intervention over a longitudinal period. The efficacy of the intervention was measured using observational and self-reported data over a period of 6 months. Results showed that there were significant changes in objective and self-reported energy conservation behavior, perceived top management commitment, organizational culture, norms, and knowledge regarding energy conservation behavior over the course of the study. The findings also demonstrated that the intervention was most successful for those behaviors where employees have individual responsibility. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

#### Edited by:

Ante Glavas, Kedge Business School, France

#### Reviewed by:

Edward H. Powley, Naval Postgraduate School, USA Pavlos A. Vlachos, ALBA Graduate Business School at the American College of Greece, Greece

> \*Correspondence: Sally V. Russell s.russell@leeds.ac.uk

#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 28 July 2015 Accepted: 04 March 2016 Published: 21 March 2016

#### Citation:

Russell SV, Evans A, Fielding KS and Hill C (2016) Turn It Off: An Action Research Study of Top Management Influence on Energy Conservation in the Workplace. Front. Psychol. 7:389. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00389 Keywords: energy conservation, pro-environmental behavior, workplace, sustainability, intervention, organizational culture, top management

## INTRODUCTION

Businesses are facing increasing pressure to reduce their electricity use as issues of climate change and limited resources become more prominent (De Young, 1993; Stern, 2000). While research to date has tended to focus on organizational policy and strategy as an effective mechanism to change organizational behavior, recent research has identified the many opportunities for gains to be made by looking inside the organization (Robertson and Barling, 2013; Unsworth et al., 2013; Young et al., 2015). One method of reducing electricity use is by encouraging employees to change their behavior in the workplace. Indeed, the role of employee behavior change in reducing the energy use of organizations cannot be understated. Research has shown that interventions can be quite effective at changing individual behavior (De Young, 1993), however, this finding has not been tested to the same extent in the workplace (Ones and Dilchert, 2012; Young et al., 2015). We argue that more research is necessary to examine whether these types of interventions are effective in the workplace. The findings from such an investigation have the potential to result in significant reductions in the use of electricity by organizations.

Organizations are large consumers of electricity and they are therefore under significant pressure to play a part in reducing electricity demand. For example, two thirds of electricity produced in Australia is supplied to commercial customers. Over the period from 2008–2009 to 2010–2011, the use of electricity by industrial consumers increased by 18% (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). These figures also highlight the opportunity for businesses to reduce costs by reducing electricity use.

In this article we report the results of an intervention study conducted at a large Australian hospital with the goal of encouraging energy conservation behavior for office-based employees. Drawing on literature from organizational and environmental psychology we took an action research approach in the design and implementation of the workplace proenvironmental behavior change intervention.

Research has shown that the determinants of behavior in the workplace are different to those in other contexts such as households (Andersson and Bateman, 2000; Steg and Vlek, 2009). For example, within the household individual behavior to reduce energy can be directly linked to saving money on bills. In the workplace, however, this link is much more distant and the relevance of self-interested monetary savings becomes much less relevant for individual employees (Griskevicius et al., 2012). As such, strategies that are effective in encouraging households to engage in more pro-environmental behavior may be different to those that are effective in a workplace context.

There is some evidence to suggest that employees look to the organization and its managers to provide cues as to how to behave in relation to environmental issues (Andersson and Bateman, 2000; Ramus and Steger, 2000; Young et al., 2015), yet further research is needed to investigate this issue. In particular, we argue that the influence of top management commitment on employee pro-environmental behavior is an area that deserves further attention (Morgeson et al., 2013; Jones Christensen et al., 2014). Past research has demonstrated that top management support is significantly correlated with proenvironmental behavior (Ramus and Steger, 2000; Robertson and Barling, 2013), however, there are far fewer studies that go beyond correlational analysis (Vlachos et al., 2013). In this research study we aim to contribute to this burgeoning area by testing the influence of top management commitment in a field-based intervention study.

Furthermore, the current study aims to contribute a practical understanding of how psychological interventions can be used to promote more pro-environmental behavior in a workplace setting. While interventions are often tested in laboratory settings with strict controls, we note that applied studies such as the one reported here have received much less research attention despite researchers highlighting this as important step in understanding pro-environmental behavior in the workplace (Andersson et al., 2013; Unsworth et al., 2013).

The action research approach, or what could also be termed co-production, entails participation by a group of people who work together to co-create positive outcomes for both parties (McNiff and Whitehead, 2001; Thompson and Perry, 2004). Businesses and researchers are increasingly using action research (McNiff and Whitehead, 2001) and co-creation (Chen et al., 2012) to bring together knowledge from researchers and practitioners in order to have a positive influence on organizational practice. In this study we take the approach of co-production with a social value (Guston, 2001; Sanders and Simons, 2009), and aim to test the efficacy of an initiative designed to improve the environmental performance of an organization using behavior change techniques.

In the following sections of this article we first review research that examines workplace behavior and identify the importance of the organizational variables of top management commitment and organizational culture in determining workplace proenvironmental behavior. We then introduce the behavior change theories that were used to design the intervention, with a particular focus on the use of persuasive techniques. The proceeding sections of the article outline the methods and results, and then in the final section we discuss the implications of our research for both theory and practice.

### BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As noted by Andersson et al. (2013), to date there has been a lack of emphasis on the contribution that organizational scholars can make to research on workplace pro-environmental behavior. Workplace pro-environmental behavior can be defined as "any action taken by employees that she or he thought would improve the environmental performance of the company" (Ramus and Steger, 2000, p. 606). Past research has been dominated by studies that have examined individual factors that affect proenvironmental behavior. Most notably, the individual variables of attitudes, norms, and knowledge have been shown to be key determinants of workplace pro-environmental behavior (Young et al., 2015). An attitude reflects a person's positive or negative evaluation of an attitude object (Ajzen, 1991) and refers to how favorable individuals feel about engaging in a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). A positive attitude toward a workplace pro-environmental behavior should result in more engagement in this type of behavior. Similarly, subjective norms – perceived social pressure to engage in certain behaviors – can also result in greater performance of the target behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Rivis and Sheeran, 2003). Rivis and Sheeran (2003) conducted a meta-analysis and found that descriptive norms are also predictive of behavior. Descriptive norms differ from subjective norms in that they refer to perceptions of what other people typically do (Cialdini, 2003), rather than the perceived social pressure evidenced in subjective norms. Finally, knowledge about a particular behavior is also an important individual variable, because in order to perform the behavior one must first know how to do so (Abrahamse et al., 2005).

While environmental psychology has shown that these variables have a strong influence on individuals, within the workplace, organizational factors also become important. Young et al. (2015) showed that perceptions of the organization and its leaders also play an important role in explaining workplace pro-environmental behavior. In particular, they found that organizational variables of top management support and

organizational culture are key in understanding how employees behave in relation to environmental issues (Tudor et al., 2008; Young et al., 2015).

As noted by Young et al. (2015), organizational culture is important in determining workplace pro-environmental behavior. In this context the environmental culture of the organization can be considered the degree to which environmental issues are considered in the goals, values, and day-to-day operation of the company (Banerjee et al., 2003). Top management also play an important role in organizational culture in that their level of involvement in sustainability is a clear demonstration of the depth of the sustainability culture within the organization (Russell and McIntosh, 2011).

According to Banerjee et al. (2003, p. 110), "top management demonstrates its commitment to environmentalism by appointing senior managers responsible for overseeing the firm's environmental orientation and strategies." Management support can be as simple as making a written commitment to improve the organization's sustainability (Zibarras and Ballinger, 2011), although Ramus and Steger (2000) found it could be more than just a written commitment. Encouraging environmental innovation, competence building, communication, reward and recognition, and management of goals and responsibilities are all important aspects of top management commitment (Ramus and Steger, 2000). These types of encouragement have all been found to positively influence employee environmental initiatives (Ramus and Steger, 2000). For the purposes of our research we define management support as 'top management commitment,' or the extent to which top management is perceived to be supportive of pro-environmental behavior in the workplace (Banerjee et al., 2003).

Leadership literature also has much to offer in understanding how employees can be encouraged to engage in more proenvironmental behavior (e.g., Jones Christensen et al., 2014). In particular the concept of environmentally specific transformational leadership has been demonstrated to have a significant effect (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Transformational leaders often use idealized influence and thereby become role models for employees; that is they do "what's right rather than what is expedient" (p. 178). In this way the most effective leaders engage in modeling behavior and influence their employees to engage in actions that reduce the organization's impact on the natural environment. In this study we aim to test this theory in order to go beyond past findings that have largely been correlational in nature.

Research by Ramus and Steger (2000), for example, showed that strong signals of top management support were correlated with increases in employee implementation of workplace proenvironmental behavior. Similarly, Robertson and Barling (2013) have shown that transformational leadership characteristics are associated with greater self-reported employee proenvironmental behavior. Taken together these studies point to the importance of top management support for workplace pro-environmental behavior.

While these studies have been instrumental in recognizing the importance of top management support, they are limited in two ways. First, these studies are correlational and therefore it is not possible to examine how or whether top management commitment can influence employee pro-environmental behavior over time. Additionally, these studies rely on self-reported rather than observational measures of proenvironmental behavior, a limitation of much of the intervention literature (Young et al., 2015). In this research we aimed to further understanding by examining whether an intervention designed to emphasize top management support could be used to encourage employees to engage in more workplace pro-environmental behavior. Furthermore, we aimed to use observational measures of behavior and to test our intervention in a field setting.

### Behavior Change Theory

In the current study the intervention was designed with a focus on emphasizing top management commitment in order to encourage staff to engage in more pro-environmental behavior within the workplace. This was achieved using the behavior change techniques of modeling and prompts. Evidence suggests that using more than one strategy can greatly increase the effectiveness of the intervention (Abrahamse et al., 2005), and therefore these two key strategies were considered to be particularly appropriate in the organizational context.

The first approach, modeling, is consistent with the idealized influence of transformational leadership (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Research has shown that the effect of top management commitment can be enhanced by ensuring that managers demonstrate or model the actions that they are trying to encourage in their staff (Feasby and Wells, 2011; Kane, 2011). Seeing management demonstrate or model the target behavior in the workplace goes above and beyond simply making a commitment to improve sustainability, because it shows that management are actually following through on their commitments. If the management team is not engaging in the behavior in the workplace then employees may not feel that they should. For instance, Blok et al. (2015) showed that leadership support and exemplary proenvironmental behavior by leaders are important factors when it comes to pro-environmental behavior in the workplace. They found that when managers were seen to display pro-environmental behavior themselves, this had a significant positive impact on employee's intention to act pro-environmentally.

The modeling approach is also consistent with the provision of influence using social norms. Social norms are the implied rules about how to act or the accepted ways of doing things (Turner, 1991). Social psychological research has a long history that demonstrates how norms have been used to influence behavior, by encouraging individuals to engage in behaviors they observe in others and feeling a sense of pressure to conform (Schultz et al., 2008; Goldstein et al., 2011). Research has shown that social norm messages have been more effective in changing pro-environmental behavior than other types of persuasive messages that try and change behavior by appealing to environmental protection norms or financial goals (Goldstein et al., 2008; Nolan et al., 2008; Schultz et al., 2008).

Persuasive messages have been shown to be effective in changing behavior, however, one of the key limitations is the extent to which such changes endure over the long term (Goldstein et al., 2011). Thus, one of the key issues with workplace pro-environmental behavior is how to effectively encourage employees to engage in such behavior, and to make it part of their everyday routine over the long term. Prompts have been shown to be one way to encourage behavior, and they can be defined as "a visual or auditory aid that reminds us to carry out an activity that we might otherwise forget" (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999, p. 61). In other words, prompts are an effective way of reminding individuals about new tasks until they become established as routines. Even after a task has become routine, prompts can continue to be useful by helping to maintain these routines.

Prompts are one of the most simple and least expensive behavior change interventions (Schultz et al., 1995), and they have been applied to various contexts and behaviors including pro-environmental behavior (Lehman and Geller, 2004). In addition to being inexpensive and simple, prompts are also less intrusive compared to other strategies such as social pressure and material disincentives (De Young, 1993; Schultz et al., 1995). Further, they can produce immediate changes in behavior, and can potentially influence large numbers of people (De Young, 1993). Moreover, there are many studies, reviews, and metaanalyses that conclude that prompts are an effective tool for increasing pro-environmental behavior (Schultz et al., 1995; Lehman and Geller, 2004; Osbaldiston, 2004; Osbaldiston and Schott, 2012).

Osbaldiston's (2004) meta-analysis showed that prompts have been used successfully to increase recycling, water conservation, and energy conservation. In particular, using prompts was the second most effective method for increasing energy conservation behavior, second only to the more expensive strategy of providing incentives (Osbaldiston, 2004). A more recent meta-analysis by Osbaldiston and Schott (2012) supported the earlier findings, and concluded that prompts are one of the most effective ways to increase pro-environmental behavior. Lehman and Geller (2004) provided a summary of studies on prompts and concluded that prompts are particularly effective when targeting littering, energy use, and recycling.

A research study reported by Sussman and Gifford (2012) is one of very few studies on prompts within a workplace setting. Their study used prompts to encourage people to turn off the lights in unoccupied public bathrooms at a university campus. The prompts were effective at changing behavior: compared to bathrooms without prompts, bathrooms with prompts were eight times more likely to have lights turned off (Sussman and Gifford, 2012).

Using a combination of intervention techniques as described above, we worked with an organization to design an intervention to create enduring positive change in workplace pro-environmental behavior. In testing the efficacy of the intervention, our overarching hypothesis of the study is,

Hypothesis: Enhancing the visibility of top management commitment through modeling and prompts will increase pro-environmental behavior in the workplace.

### Behavioral Focus

The purpose of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention that aimed to demonstrate top management commitment and in doing so encourage workplace proenvironmental behavior. Research suggests that a focus on a narrow set of targeted behavior can improve the effectiveness of intervention design (Abrahamse et al., 2007). We therefore targeted specific behaviors and narrowed the focus of our research to workplace electricity conservation, which we define as any actions by employees that reduce the electricity consumed by the organization. Our overarching aim was to investigate the efficacy of an intervention to encourage energy conservation behavior in the workplace.

From our review of the literature it is clear that top management commitment plays an important role in determining workplace pro-environmental behavior (Russell et al., 2007; Russell and McIntosh, 2011; Young et al., 2015). We argue that an intervention designed to enhance the visibility of top management support will therefore result in an increase in workplace energy conservation behavior. Thus, our aim was to examine the efficacy of an intervention approach that enhances the visibility of top management commitment to energy conservation behavior in the workplace.

### MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current study consisted of three main components: the intervention (the "Turn It Off " campaign), energy audits, and surveys. **Figure 1** depicts the overall timeline of the project, and the pre-test post-test design. This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. All participants gave informed consent to participate in the study.

### Intervention Design and Administration

The purpose of the intervention was to encourage energy conservation behavior in the workplace through the use of persuasive techniques emphasizing top management. The energy saving behaviors that were targeted were selected by the organizational representatives and included turning off lights in unoccupied offices, unplugging chargers when not in use, turning off computer hard drives and monitors each night, and turning off air-conditioners when not in use. The intervention consisted of three components: (1) posters that showed management support of energy conservation with images of managers modeling the targeted behaviors; (2) communications from various sources within the organization, including top management (e.g., an email from the CEO to introduce the campaign to staff, and an email from the Director of the Information Technology Department to encourage staff to turn off computers overnight); and (3) stickers placed near switches prompting staff to "Turn It Off." Thus, the campaign clearly emphasized top management support for energy conservation behavior and used prompts to remind employees at the point where the behavior occurred (Abrahamse et al., 2005). A total of 250 posters were displayed in prominent areas (e.g., notice

boards) throughout the buildings, and 5,000 stickers were placed immediately next to light switches and power points.

### Measures

In this study we measured our dependent variable, energy use behavior, using both observed and self-reported measures. The independent variables were those we aimed to affect through the intervention and these included perceived top management commitment, organizational culture, descriptive norms, subjective norms, knowledge, and attitudes.

#### Observed Energy Use Behavior

The purpose of the energy audits was to obtain an objective measure of workplace energy behavior, which was the dependent variable for the study. This was measured as the number of energy using appliances left on outside normal office hours. The audits involved a small team of researchers visually inspecting 246 offices located in three different buildings. Some offices were shared/open plan and others were individual. The audits focused on appliances that were targeted in the Turn It Off campaign (lights, computer monitors and hard-drives, chargers, and airconditioners). For each office the total number of appliances was counted as well as the number of appliances left on, so that the proportion of appliances left on could be calculated (the proportion takes into account any changes in the number of each appliance across the 6 months). The first audit was conducted 2 weeks prior to the intervention, the second audit was conducted 1 month after the intervention, and the third audit was conducted 6 months after the intervention. All three audits were conducted during the evening (outside normal office hours) and employees were not made aware that the audits were being conducted. It was important that employees remained unaware that the audits were being conducted to ensure the baseline results particularly were reflective of current practice. The audits were therefore conducted prior to the distribution of the baseline survey and prior to any communications in relation to the intervention.

### Self-Reported Energy Use

To complement the observation data, pre- and post-test selfreported behavioral surveys were also conducted. The degree to which participants had engaged in energy conservation behaviors in the week prior to each survey was assessed using four-items, e.g., "please indicate how often in the last week you do the following while at work. . .turn off lights in unoccupied rooms." The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = rarely or never, 5 = always or almost always). The four self-reported behavior items did not form a reliable scale, α = 0.47, and therefore were analyzed individually.

### Perceived Top Management Commitment

The degree to which participants felt that top management were supportive of energy conservation behavior was measured on a three-items scale adapted from Banerjee et al. (2003), e.g., "Our organization's energy saving efforts receive full support from our top management." The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The scale had an acceptable level of internal reliability, α = 0.84 (Nunnaly, 1978; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).

#### Organizational Culture

The degree to which participants felt that the organization's culture encompassed energy conservation was measured on a four-items scale of internal environmental orientation also adapted from Banerjee et al. (2003), e.g., "energy conservation is a high priority activity in our organization." The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The scale had an acceptable level of internal reliability, α = 0.82 (Nunnaly, 1978; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).

### Descriptive Norms, Subjective Norms, and Knowledge

Participants' perception of descriptive norms regarding energy conservation in the workplace was measured using oneitem, "Most staff save energy in the workplace." Participants' perception of subjective norms regarding energy conservation in the workplace was measured using one-item, "It is expected of me that I save energy in my workplace." Finally, participants' knowledge of how to conserve energy in the workplace was measured with one-item, "I know how to save energy in the workplace." All three of these items were measured on the same five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The use of single item measures has been shown to be appropriate in previous research on conservation behaviors (Fielding et al., 2012).

#### Attitudes toward Workplace Energy Conservation

Participants' attitudes toward workplace energy conservation were measured on a three-items scale in accordance with recommendations of Ajzen (1991), e.g., "I think engaging in energy saving behaviors is. . .." The three-items were measured on different five-point Likert scales (1 = bad, 5 = good;

Russell et al. Top Management and Energy Conservation

1 = unimportant, 5 = important; 1 = worthless, 5 = valuable). The scale had an acceptable level of internal reliability, α = 0.81 (Nunnaly, 1978; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).

All survey items were administered twice throughout the project. The baseline measurement occurred 1 week prior to the intervention, and the follow-up measurement occurred 1 month after the intervention. Both surveys were conducted after the energy audits at the baseline and follow-up periods to avoid any change in behavior that may have occurred because of the topic of the survey.

### RESULTS

### Participant Demographics and Response Rate

The baseline and follow-up surveys were sent to 816 nonclinical staff at a large Australian hospital. A total of 312 staff responded to the baseline survey, and 278 staff responded to the follow-up survey. There were 115 matching responses (14% response rate) across the two surveys. The human resources division of the participant organization confirmed that the matched respondent sample approximated the demographic profile of administrative staff in the organization. We also tested for differences between respondents who completed both surveys and respondents who completed only one of the two surveys and found no significant differences in demographic characteristics, behavior or attitudes between these groups. All analyses reported in relation to the survey and demographics refer to the 115 matching participants. The average age of participants was 40.5 years, and ranged from 17 to 70 years. Approximately two-thirds of participants were female, and onethird were male. Most were employed full-time (87%), some part-time (12%), and very few casuals or other employment types (1%). The average tenure at the organization was 6 years.

### Observed Energy Use Behavior

Energy audits were conducted to provide an observed measure of behavior before the intervention, 1 month after the intervention and 6 months after the intervention. **Figure 2** depicts the key findings from the energy audits. It should be noted that the energy audit results for chargers and airconditioners are not reported here. The reason for this is that most (more than 90%) of the air-conditioners were centrally controlled (turn on and off automatically), and the number of chargers was too small to carry out meaningful statistical analyses.

### Lights

At the time of the first audit, 970 out of 1,111 lights were turned off (87.3%). At the time of the second audit, 914 out of 1,029 lights were turned off (88.8%), representing a slight increase (1.5%) in the proportion of lights turned off. However, this difference was not significant, χ <sup>2</sup> = 1.16, ns. At the time of the third audit, 823 out of 1,064 lights were turned off (77.3%), representing a decrease in the proportion of lights turned off compared to both

the first and second audits (10 and 11.5%, respectively). Both differences were significant, χ <sup>2</sup> = 37.23, p < 0.001 (first vs. third), and χ <sup>2</sup> = 48.79, p < 0.001 (second vs. third).

### Hard Drives

At the time of the first audit, 177 out of 464 computer hard drives were turned off (38.8%). At the time of the second audit, 240 out of 434 computer hard drives were turned off (55.3%); representing a 16.5% increase in the proportion of computer hard drives turned off. This difference was significant, χ <sup>2</sup> = 26.53, p < 0.001. At the time of the third audit, 198 out of 368 computer hard drives were turned off (53.8%), representing a 15% increase in the proportion of computer hard drives turned off compared to the first audit. This difference was also significant, χ <sup>2</sup> = 19.63, p < 0.001. The difference between the second and third audits was not significant, χ <sup>2</sup> = 0.25, ns.

### Monitors

At the time of the first audit, 122 out of 668 monitors were turned off (18.3%). At the time of the second audit, 266 out of 579 monitors were turned off (45.9%), representing a 27.6% increase in the proportion of monitors turned off. This difference was significant, χ <sup>2</sup> = 110.86, p < 0.001. At the time of the third audit, 137 out of 439 monitors were turned off (31.2%), representing a 12.9% increase in the proportion of monitors turned off compared to the first audit. This difference was significant, χ <sup>2</sup> = 24.76, p < 0.001. The difference between the second and third audits was also significant, χ <sup>2</sup> = 22.66, p < 0.001.

### Survey Results

A summary of the mean, standard deviation, and correlation of the survey results at Times 1 and 2 are presented in **Table 1**. Additionally, **Figure 3** depicts the changes in self-reported energy conservation behavior before and after the Turn It Off campaign. The difference in the mean score on the first item, "turn off lights in unoccupied rooms" between baseline and follow-up was significant, t(111) = −3.17, p = 0.002, such that participants reported turning off lights more often after the Turn It Off campaign (M = 3.81) compared to before (M = 3.44). The eta squared statistic (η <sup>2</sup> = 0.08) indicated a moderate effect size. The difference in the mean score on the second item, "shut down your computer before leaving the office" between



<sup>a</sup>Mean and SD are at Time 1. Time 1 correlations are presented below the diagonal, Time 2 correlations are presented above the diagonal. Cronbach's alpha for computed subscales are in bold on the diagonal. Asterisk's represent the following: <sup>∗</sup>p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01.

baseline and follow-up was significant, t(111) = −4.40, p < 0.001, such that participants reported turning off computers more often after the Turn It Off campaign (M = 4.19) compared to before (M = 3.62). The eta squared statistic (η <sup>2</sup> = 0.15) indicated a large effect size. The difference in the mean score on the third item "unplug chargers when not in use" between baseline and follow-up was significant, t(111) = −4.63, p < 0.001, such that participants reported unplugging chargers when not in use more often after the Turn It Off campaign (M = 3.94) compared to before (M = 3.31). The eta squared statistic (η <sup>2</sup> = 0.16) indicated a large effect size. Finally, the difference between scores on the fourth item "turn off air-conditioners when leaving the office" between baseline and follow-up was significant, t(52) = −2.13, p = 0.038, such that participants reported turning off air-conditioners more often after the Turn It Off campaign (M = 3.64) compared to before (M = 3.26). The eta squared statistic (η <sup>2</sup> = 0.08) indicated a moderate effect size.

**Figure 4** depicts the changes in perceived top management commitment and internal environmental orientation in the organization before and after the Turn It Off campaign. The difference in perceived top management commitment between baseline and follow-up was significant, t(107) = −5.66, p < 0.001. Participants reported stronger top management commitment

after the Turn It Off campaign (M = 3.68) compared to before (M = 3.28). The eta squared statistic (η <sup>2</sup> = 0.23) indicated a large effect size. Similarly, the difference in perceived internal environmental orientation between baseline and follow-up was also significant, t(107) = −7.66, p < 0.001. Participants perceived a more positive internal environmental orientation after the Turn It Off campaign (M = 3.52) compared to before (M = 2.94). The eta squared statistic (η <sup>2</sup> = 0.35) indicated a large effect size.

The difference in descriptive norms between baseline and follow-up was significant, t(106) = −3.91, p < 0.001. Participants perceived that more staff saved energy in the workplace after the Turn It Off campaign (M = 3.02) compared to before (M = 2.68). The eta squared statistic (η <sup>2</sup> = 0.13) indicated a moderate effect size. The difference in subjective norms between baseline and follow-up was significant, t(106) = −5.63, p < 0.001. Participants perceived greater expectations of energy conservation after the Turn It Off campaign (M = 3.87) compared to before (M = 3.29). The eta squared statistic (η <sup>2</sup> = 0.23) indicated a large effect size. The difference in knowledge regarding energy conservation between baseline and follow-up was significant, t(105) = −4.77, p < 0.001. Participants reported greater knowledge regarding how to save energy in the workplace after the Turn It Off campaign (M = 4.19) compared to before (M = 3.86). The

eta squared statistic (η <sup>2</sup> = 0.18) indicated a large effect size. Finally, attitudes toward workplace energy conservation did not significantly change throughout the study, t(101) = −0.68, p = 0.495. The mean before the Turn It Off campaign was 4.65, compared to 4.68 after the campaign. **Figure 5** depicts the changes in norms and knowledge about energy conservation behavior before and after the Turn It Off campaign.

### DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our aim in this research was to examine the efficacy of an intervention to reduce energy use in a workplace context. We did this by designing an intervention that used the influence of top management commitment on energy conservation in order to embed the behavior over the long-term. Our study extends past research by demonstrating that the use of influence strategies in combination with prompts is an effective strategy to encourage energy conservation behavior in the workplace. Although past research has shown that prompts are effective in household settings, the application to the workplace had not been empirically tested (Schultz et al., 1995; Lehman and Geller, 2004; Osbaldiston, 2004; Osbaldiston and Schott, 2012). Our results extend previous research by showing that these types of interventions may be effective only for particular behaviors. Indeed, our intervention was particularly successful for behaviors with a strong element of individual responsibility, such as turning off computer monitors and hard drives. The intervention was not successful in changing behaviors that are more collectively oriented such as turning off lights. Further, the current study has successfully addressed two limitations of previous research: (1) the use of self-reported measures as an indicator of behavior; and (2) the cross-sectional nature of studies of top management commitment (Ramus and Steger, 2000; Robertson and Barling, 2013).

Survey results demonstrated that the energy conservation intervention led to positive changes in self-reported energy conservation behavior, perceived top management commitment, perceived internal environmental orientation, subjective norms, descriptive norms, and knowledge of energy conservation behavior. There were, however, no changes in attitudes. It is possible that this may be a result of a ceiling effect (attitudes toward energy conservation behavior were quite high at baseline and remained high at follow-up). However, these results provide empirical support for the assertions by Young et al. (2015) that it is not necessary to change attitudes in order to effectively change behavior.

The results of the energy audits were mixed. For computer monitors and hard drives the results showed that the intervention was effective at increasing the proportion of appliances turned off, and these findings were maintained at a 6-months follow-up. However, for lights the results were not as consistent – in fact, the reverse effect was found.

One possible explanation for the mixed energy audit findings could be that computer hard drives and monitors are behaviors that have a strong element of individual responsibility, whereas lights are often shared resources and thus there is a diffusion of responsibility for those appliances (particularly in shared or open plan offices). Story and Forsyth (2008) argued that responsibility is an antecedent to behavioral and contribution intentions, and that awareness (both directly and indirectly through appraisal) of an issue leads to a sense of personal responsibility for that issue. It is possible that by making individual responsibility more salient in the intervention, that participants focused more on this to the detriment of the more collective behavior of switching off lights. Indeed, as shown in **Figure 2**, the percentage of lights that were turned off decreased over the course of the research.

Future research in this area should examine the role of responsibility for different appliances, and compare the effectiveness of interventions for individual offices vs. shared/open plan offices. Our intervention worked well for behaviors with an element of individual responsibility, but another approach may be required for collective behaviors or behaviors where there is a diffusion of responsibility. Another alternative explanation for this finding could be that of moral self-licensing (Merritt et al., 2010). It could be, for example, that employees engage in individual behaviors such as turning off computers and monitors and feel they have gained moral credit. When it comes to engaging in shared behaviors such as turning off lights, employees feel they do not have to engage in these behaviors because they have earned moral credits. Similarly, this could be a symptom of social loafing, whereby people exert less effort or have less motivation to achieve a goal when they are working in a group (Simms and Nichols, 2014; Frederiks et al., 2015). It is unclear from this study what mechanism is driving this behavior and this warrants further attention in future research.

As with most field research, there are some limitations that need to be acknowledged. The first limitation is that the design does not enable the disentangling of the effects of top management support and prompts. We can say that the combination of the two intervention types was successful; it is not possible, however, to determine the extent to which prompts were effective as compared to top management support. Future research that examines these intervention strategies separately would be of benefit in determining the specific effectiveness of each approach.

The study utilized a pre-test post-test design. There are other designs that may have shown more conclusive results such as an ABAB design where the intervention is implemented, removed, reinstated, and then removed with measures at each period (see for example, Sussman and Gifford, 2012). An ABAB design could not be utilized in the current study because this design was not consistent with the organization's goals. The organizational aim was to promote energy conservation behavior and it was therefore not possible to implement and then remove the intervention during the course of the study as would be required by the ABAB design. Furthermore, the organizational constraints meant that we were not able to withhold the intervention from a control group. The use of a control group was not considered to be in line with the organization's goals, thus the intervention was applied to all staff members. We used the measurements of both self-report and observations pre- and postintervention and showed a change in behavior, however, the absence of a control group remains a limitation of this research.

Another factor to consider is habituation to prompts. De Young (1993) argued that prompts are ineffective in the longterm, particularly once people become habituated to them. Our research showed that the intervention was successful for individual behaviors after a 6-months period. Although there was some reduction in effectiveness at the 6-months follow-up there remained a significant reduction in energy using behaviors after 6 months as compared to the baseline measurements. However, future research would be valuable to test the effectiveness on a longer time scale. Research has shown that once a prompt is removed, behavior can return to baseline levels (De Young, 1993). Future research would be of benefit to monitor the effectiveness of prompts and whether or not the target audience becomes habituated to them. Strategies to reduce habituation in workplace settings could also be tested. Making a change to the prompt (stimulus specificity) and introducing a new prompt (dishabituation) are two techniques known to reduce habituation to stimuli in lab studies (McSweeney, 2004), but this remains to be tested in workplace settings.

### REFERENCES


Finally, the role of organizational culture could be explored further. In the current study, internal environmental orientation was measured but not manipulated. Since culture is an important variable in organizational change for sustainability (Russell and McIntosh, 2011; Young et al., 2015), it is likely that the internal environmental orientation of the organization had an effect on participants' willingness to engage in energy conservation behavior. Future research that examines the effect of the internal environmental orientation of the organization would be of benefit in this area.

In this research we have extended previous research on top management commitment and demonstrated that this type of intervention strategy is an effective way of encouraging energy conservation behaviors in the workplace. Furthermore, we have extended past research by demonstrating how top management commitment can be used to influence behavior over the longterm. Furthermore, the use of prompts in conjunction with top management commitment was shown to lead to positive changes in perceptions of top management commitment and internal environmental orientation. The opportunities for future research in the area of workplace pro-environmental behavior are vast, and include examining the role of responsibility, habituation, and internal environmental orientation.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

### FUNDING

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by Griffith University and the Australian Federal Government as part of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.


behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resour. Res. 48, W10510.1– W10510.1. doi: 10.1029/2012WR012398


**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Russell, Evans, Fielding and Hill. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Making Sense of Corporate Social Responsibility and Work

Ami N. Seivwright<sup>1</sup> \* and Kerrie L. Unsworth<sup>2</sup>

<sup>1</sup> Centre for Social Impact, Business School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia, <sup>2</sup> Organizational Behaviour, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Employees can be a driving force behind organizational corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts, yet the vast majority of literature has focused on firm-level understanding and implementation of CSR. Recent literature that explores the relationship between employees and CSR has not investigated how employees conceive of their role in CSR. We propose that in order to understand the factors that affect employee engagement in CSR, we must first understand how employees conceptualize the phenomenon of CSR and how that conceptualisation fits into their work. Our exploratory, inductive study interviews two cohorts of employees, one in a not for profit and the other in a corporate organization, revealing stark contrasts in how the different cohorts conceptualize and engage in CSR, particularly with regards to how CSR contributes to meaningfulness at work. Implications for organizations are discussed.

Keywords: employee behavior, corporate social responsibility, meaningfulness, job design, organizational behavior

#### Edited by:

Ante Glavas, Kedge Business School, France

#### Reviewed by:

Omer Farooq, Kedge Business School, France Tara Behrend, The George Washington University, USA

#### \*Correspondence:

Ami N. Seivwright ami.seivwright@uwa.edu.au

#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 30 October 2015 Accepted: 11 March 2016 Published: 24 March 2016

#### Citation:

Seivwright AN and Unsworth KL (2016) Making Sense of Corporate Social Responsibility and Work. Front. Psychol. 7:443. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00443 INTRODUCTION

In academia and in the C-suite of organizations, we have an understanding of what corporate social responsibility (CSR) is and what needs to be done to achieve CSR strategies; but what do employees think their involvement in CSR is and how do they make sense of this construct, particularly when it comes to how it fits into their work? The construct of CSR is well-established in the literature, with much effort dedicated to defining and developing it (e.g., Davis, 1960; Eells and Walton, 1961; Carroll, 1979; Wartick and Cochran, 1985), investigating how best to focus firm-level efforts (e.g., Wood, 1991; Garriga and Melé, 2004), and considering the outcomes of CSR, including employeelevel outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment and performance (e.g., Turban and Greening, 1997; Gond and Herrbach, 2006; Lee et al., 2013). However, much CSR needs to be enacted by employees in its implementation and little emphasis has been placed on this role; that is, looking at how employees contribute to CSR rather than just how they are affected by it. This represents a serious gap in our understanding of CSR as it is employees who are often responsible for enacting an organization's CSR policy and strategy, yet we do not know what they understand CSR to be.

The CSR literature emphasizes that multiple stakeholders must be engaged to optimize the outcomes of CSR efforts (Meznar et al., 1990; Knox and Maklan, 2004; McWilliams et al., 2006). Accordingly, the role of micro, meso and macro level stakeholders has been explored through conceptual frameworks (e.g., Aguilera et al., 2007; Rupp et al., 2011), multilevel models (e.g., Wood, 1991) and extensive literature reviews (e.g., Aguinis, 2011; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). These explorations highlight that research on the micro level, particularly at the employee level, is severely lacking. Some authors conceptualize leaders and managers as the micro level of CSR, noting their importance as they are often responsible for selecting implementing CSR strategy (Wood, 1991; Basu and Palazzo, 2008;

Jiraporn and Chintrakarn, 2013; Okoye, 2013). However, this does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of CSR as it suggests that leaders are the final actors in implementing CSR, when in reality, it is up to employees to enact the strategy set out by the organization and supported by its leaders. As a result, while firms accept that they must engage stakeholders at all levels in order to effectively meet their responsibilities to their operating environment, the connection between employees and CSR, and the impact of employee CSR effort on the firm – both generally and in terms of corporate social performance, is not clearly established, meaning CSR in reality is often just the production of expensive reports for the purpose of compliance (Knox and Maklan, 2004). We believe that understanding how employees conceptualize CSR and, in turn, how this conceptualization affects their CSR behavior is critical to establishing how employees fit into the CSR picture.

Following Carroll (1991, 1999) and Dahlsrud (2008), we define CSR as being based on stakeholder needs, being financially sustainable, including the environmental dimension, and either voluntary or economically, legally or ethically mandated. Thus, we suggest that CSR can come from both corporate organizations whose remit is outside CSR or from not-for-profits who are driven to engage in CSR for other reasons (see Aguinis and Glavas, 2013 for a discussion on embedded versus peripheral CSR). We consider eCSR to be the employees' efforts to then enact the organization's CSR strategy (or, to substitute with personal behavior if the organization's CSR strategy is deemed inadequate); more specifically, we define it as employee behavior, engaged in at work, with the intention of benefiting society or the environment. This is different to other individual level constructs because of the lack of direct feedback. For example, pro-social behaviors are directed at actors within the organization or known to the employee, and as a result the employee can expect a level of feedback, reciprocation or reward. On the other hand, eCSR is intended to deliver benefit external to the organization (the environment or broader society), and often the employee will never be able to know the true outcome of their behavior, let alone reap professional benefit from it. While there are certainly some cases of pro-social behavior (or altruism, extra-role behavior, interpersonal helping, etc.) that could also be considered eCSR, these constructs do not encompass our above definition. We therefore believe that the exploration of the eCSR construct, which fully encompasses how employees make sense of and engage in CSR activities, irrespective of their organization's position, is important to building the micro-foundations of CSR.

When considering employees and CSR, some recent literature has explored employee outcomes of CSR, such as improvements in employee performance, behavior and attitudes resulting from participating in CSR (Glavas and Piderit, 2009; Jones, 2010; Lin et al., 2010; Mueller et al., 2012). This research consistently finds that CSR is positively received by employees in terms of traditional outcomes, yet very few studies have explored the other side, that is, what CSR means to employees and how employees contribute to it through their behavior. As exceptions, Hemingway (2005) and Rodrigo and Arenas (2008) theoretically conceptualize categories of employee attitudes toward CSR but have not explored whether these categories emerge in organizations nor whether they are comprehensive. Other research has looked at antecedents of eCSR: Bingham et al. (2013) propose that employees are more likely to participate (in either an affiliative or actionable way) in organizationsponsored causes if they are committed to the cause and feel the organization is genuinely committed to the cause, and in their longitudinal study, Smith (2013) found that strong organizational philanthropic identity and efforts, over time, increased employees' charitable attitudes and behavior. Chen and Hung-Baesecke (2014) surveyed employees on their current engagement and future intention to engage in 23 activities that the organization offered and linked this to leader behavior.

Yet these studies made assumptions about the conceptualization of eCSR; we argue that the construct is too new for us to truly understand it from afar at the moment. Instead, inductive studies need to be conducted to determine how employees conceive of their role in CSR. One study that did take an exploratory look at employee engagement in CSR is Slack et al. (2015). In a case study in a single organization, they found differences in the level of eCSR amongst employees as well as differences in whether employees engaged in organizational or personal engagement in CSR outside of the workplace. This latter surprising finding demonstrates the importance of taking an inductive approach to eCSR at this stage. However, a single case study is only a start to this line of inquiry. We argue that more inductive work is required in alternative types of organizations as this may affect the conceptualization, for example, whether employees in organizations with CSR embedded into their core strategy conceptualize and engage in CSR differently than employees whose organization enacts CSR as a peripheral activity (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013). In particular, it is likely that employees in non-profit organizations (which still need to be financially sustainable, even if not financially profitable) will view their engagement in CSR differently to employees in profit-making companies (such as the one studied by Slack et al., 2015).

We believe that it is vital that we understand how employees make sense of CSR and conceptualize it before we can truly begin to identify factors that affect their engagement in CSR activities. For example, if employees perceive CSR to be an opportunity then it is likely that intrinsic motivation is at play and constraints and barriers will be the most influential factors affecting engagement, but if employees perceive CSR to be an obligation then reward will be more influential to increase the extrinsic motivation required to engage. Given that the factors that affect a particular behavior will differ depending on how the individual perceives that behavior, it is important that we execute this first step in the program of eCSR research as comprehensively as possible.

Therefore, while most of the micro-CSR literature to date explores either how employees' conceptualization of the organization's CSR affect traditional employee outcomes or what affects such conceptualizations, this study sets out to explore how employees in profit-driven and non-profit organizations actually conceptualize and engage in CSR. We feel that this is an important step as, despite the recognized importance of eCSR, there is a lack of inductively based conceptualizations

of the full scope of behaviors that employees engage in with socially responsible intentions. Our research question, therefore, was, "How do employees engage in the enactment of CSR and how do they make sense of how it fits in with their work?" We conducted an inductive study with employees from two organizations, theoretically sampled to ensure we had both a not-for-profit organization and a corporate organization.

### MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the qualitative research tool of interviewing for data collection. Morgan and Smircich (1980, p. 491) state that the appropriateness of qualitative methodology in social research "derives from the nature of the social phenomena to be explored," with Huberman and Miles (2002) specifying that qualitative research is essential to understanding individual perceptions and social interactions. As there is no existing theoretical or empirical conceptualization of employee CSR behavior or even an understanding as to how employees conceptualize this themselves, the research is exploratory to ensure that our eventual conceptualization of this type of behavior is reflective of how it is enacted and experienced in real life.

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 32 employees at two different organizations. Organization One is a prominent faith-based not-for-profit organization that has a operations worldwide. The workforce of Organization One consists primarily of volunteers, however, as this research focuses on employee conceptualization, our sample was 17 paid employees in professional positions across various areas of the organization. Nine were female and eight were male. Twelve participants worked in the headquarters of the organization and occupied a range of positions from management, call center operation, building management, accounting and finance, training and development, and counseling. Three worked at an adult mental health facility in managerial and clinical positions and two worked in a youth homelessness center in managerial and counseling roles. Both facilities are run by the organization. All of the locations were within the metropolitan area of Perth, Western Australia. Employees were recruited via e-mail initiated by the CEO of the organization inviting employees to contact the researcher if they were interested in participating. Once the participants contacted the authors, we found a mutually beneficial time and one author traveled to their workplace and conducted the interviews. These interviews were conducted individually (one per day) at the convenience of the participants over the first half of 2014.

Organization Two is a large organization in the banking and finance industry. The sample consisted of 15 employees, also employed in a range of areas across the business, including information technology, marketing, management, and strategic planning. Nine of these participants were female, six were male. Eleven out of fifteen reported engaging in corporate volunteering during their tenure with the organization, four had not. The interviews were conducted over 2 days in November 2014 in the headquarters of Organization Two. A member within the organization recruited and arranged appointments for participants to be interviewed, and the organization offered a 5AUD donation to charity on behalf of each participating employee as an inducement. This was organized independently of the researchers.

As emphasized in the introduction to this article, we believe that the micro-level of CSR research concerning employees and CSR is too new for us to understand well-enough to have reliable assumptions that we can build our research upon. Therefore, it was critical to us that our study was inductive and enabled us to capture the full scope of behaviors that employees believe constitute CSR. Therefore, the interview schedule began simply by describing what we believe to be the core characteristics of employee CSR – behavior engaged in at or through work with the intention of benefiting the environment or society; and asking the participants if they could recall any instances of engaging in such behavior over the last 12 months. This was the primary source of data that gave us insight into how employees thought about their behavior at work and the benefits they believed their actions offered to the environment or society. Rather than simply asking if they engage in a specific behavior (e.g., donating to charity through their workplace), we left the question open to gain insight into a broader range of actions that employees engage in with a socially responsible intention.

Also in line with the inductive approach, the interview was conducted in a semi-structured manner that adapted to each interviewee. When a participant listed more than one behavior they engage in at the initial prompt, the interviewer noted down all of the behaviors mentioned and asked the participant to discuss each one in detail, one at a time. For each behavior, the participant was asked what the behavior involves, why they do it, if it's facilitated and/or encouraged by the organization and/or their supervisor, what obstacles they face in engaging, and how engaging makes them feel. If the participant only listed one behavior, the interviewer prompted again, "are there any other things you do at work to benefit the environment or society?," followed by "what sort of initiatives does the organization encourage employees to participate in?" and "do you participate?" "why/why not" etc., then "is there anything you do personally at work, even small things that nobody else may know about, to benefit the environment or society?," investigating each behavior in depth.

The research was carried out in accordance with the recommendations and approval of The University of Western Australia's Ethics. All participants were verbally informed that they would not be personally identified at any stage of the research, they did not have to answer any questions they were uncomfortable with and could withdraw at any time. They were given a participant information form outlining the purpose of the research and the data procedures, as well as the contact details for both authors should they have any questions or concerns at any time. Adequate time was provided prior to the commencement of the interview for the participant to read the information form, and the interviewer verbally checked if they had any questions prior to commencement, and if they were happy to proceed. Each participant signed a consent form confirming that they had been provided with the information form and had read it, and were happy to participate in the interview. Prior to

starting the recording, the interviewer confirmed again that the participant was comfortable with me recording the interview, and the recording device was kept in clear view and reach of the participant at all times. Neither author has had any communication from participants after the interviews.

Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed in the R Qualitative Data Analysis (RQDA) package by the interviewing author using a grounded theory approach, which is best suited to this study as we seek not just to describe the findings within the data, but to build theory through the data (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). First, open coding, which involves line by line analysis of the data and assigning each line a theoretical concept that is relevant to the phenomena being explored, was conducted (Glaser, 1978; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Then, axial coding, grouping the open codes through empirically grounded links occurred, followed by selective coding, which involves integrating axial codes into a coherent theoretical framework that answers the research question (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). In terms of reliability, the author that conducted the interviews wrote notes after each interview. These notes were put aside and the same author conducted the open coding. A researcher completely separate to the study checked the codes with 80% agreement. The authors then discussed the codes and statements that were contested and decided together whether to keep each code, merge with other existing codes, or recode it completely. The interviewing author then presented initial findings to the other author, who interrogated the data for negative cases and alternative explanations. Only findings that both authors were confident with regards to the evidence available are presented.

### RESULTS

To set the stage for the results around the microfoundations of CSR, it is important to outline how CSR was constructed at the organizational level for the two organizations we studied. The mission of the NFP organization was centered around social responsibility, with a particular focus on social issues such as poverty, homelessness, financial hardship and mental health. The organizational structure was unique in that most of the operations were dependent on volunteers, so participants reported that the CSR context was shaped by all staff activities contributing to an overall socially responsible mission, and that the mission was primarily enacted by volunteers not employed by the organization. This is reflected in the annual report of the organization, which identifies employed staff as either providing direct service such as counseling and medical care, or operational support such as finance and human resources. To support the central operations, the organization hosted an annual fundraiser that staff were encouraged to attend and raise money for, and, according to middle management, staff were encouraged but not expected or required to engage in volunteering outside of work with the organization. Interestingly, although the social aspect of CSR was strongly evident, the organization reported no environmental policies or procedures in the annual report.

The corporate organization reported a more 'traditional' approach, stating in their annual report that they engage in CSR by focusing primarily on delivering value to stakeholders while being mindful of the environmental, social and economic impacts of its operations. However, the organization had an excellent reputation amongst national volunteering organizations as an industry leader in the voluntary sphere of CSR. The major focus for staff engagement was volunteering, with the employees having two paid days off available for volunteering at particular charities through the organization's programs. In addition, the organization matched individual employee donations and allowed employees to apply for small (1000AUD) grants for community organizations that they wanted to support. Although the organization's parent company was involved in federally mandated environmental reporting, specifically National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting, it did not appear to be a major focus, with the annual report stating that the organization is not subject to further legislated environmental regulation.

It seems, therefore, that the NFP organization had an embedded CSR strategy that came from the core of its business (cf. Aguinis and Glavas, 2013). Notably, anything that was outside this core, such as environmental sustainability, was not addressed, presumably because of the embedded strategy. On the other hand, the corporate organization had a peripheral CSR strategy where CSR activities were outside the main core strategy of the business. CSR covered both social and environmental aspects, perhaps because the "freedom" of the peripheral strategy meant that a wider variety of CSR activities could be undertaken, however, there was still a very clear focus on social and community responsibilities rather than environmental.

### Within-Role versus Extra-Role CSR

This investigation of the organizational level CSR approach occurred before we conducted the interviews and initial data analysis so as to avoid potential biases (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Nonetheless, we found that this differentiation between embedded and peripheral CSR emerged spontaneously in the employees' interviews. Generally, perceptions of CSR were different depending on whether the person came from the NFP or from the corporate organization. Broadly, most NFP employees perceived that their actual core job was CSR behavior; indeed, 11 out of the 17 participants responded to our initial question of "We're looking to discuss things you do at work with the intention of benefiting the environment and/or society. Can you think of anything that you've done at work that would fit that description?" with comments that that was just part of their job and two others discussed this in relation to later questions. For example, they made statements such as "my whole role I suppose does that" (NFP16), or "well working for [NFP X], that automatically means you're working to help others in society" (NFP1), or "the main thing that I do is choose the type of work that I do. So actually my career and what I've actively chosen is to work in the community sector" (NFP17). A statement that captures the nature of the within-role rather than extra-role nature of CSR came from NFP14: "Well there's nothing in any policy of ours that says every staff member will have 2 days of community work. I suppose then one would argue that we are actually doing community work because you're

doing community work every day in coming to work, because ultimately that's what your whole job's based around."

On the other hand, most corporate employees responded with statements about their participation in the organizationally supported volunteering, such as "...that's a bit tricky 'cause I put my hand up [to be interviewed] because I haven't done any volunteering over the past 12 months, so I don't know if there's anything I've done that has explicitly benefited the environment or society" (CORP3), "So we do occasionally have volunteering opportunities come up. So I did one recently where we got the opportunity for almost everyone in my broader division to do a volunteering day" (CORP5), or "Well, probably would be the volunteering. So volunteering through the [organization]" (CORP11), "So in my day job, I don't – day-to-day, I don't think there's much that directly impacts that. But through volunteering at [organization] and I get involved with opportunities to volunteer for events or other community engagement stuff " (CORP8).

In other words, it appears that CSR is conceptualized by the majority of NFP employees within this sample as something that implicitly emerges from their job and that it is within-role rather than extra-role behavior. On the other hand, the majority of corporate employees sampled viewed CSR as something external to their job, that is an explicitly CSR and something that constitutes an extra-role behavior. As we argue in the discussion, this is an important contribution because the factors that lead to higher levels of within-role behavior are different to those which lead to higher levels of extra-role behavior.

Interestingly, there were also different perceptions of the motives behind the organization's CSR strategy in the corporate organization, but not in the NFP. When talking about the corporate organization's CSR strategy, some people took a more cynical perspective that the CSR was for reputation-building and lip-service, even while acknowledging the positive nature of the activities. For example, CORP11 said, "I think it's a good thing [for me] personally and I think it's also a good – it's a tick for the bank as well 'cause it's – they can, do all the nice community side of things, and – so, look at us, we're good," and CORP6 said "When we first moved in here, it was all about the big green star – five star green star rating that we all gained in this building as well as other stuff. But then when we see the cleaners or some people have mentioned when they see the cleaners actually removed the bin bags they put it all together in the end." While this did not occur often, it is interesting that it emerged at all in a sample that volunteered to talk with us about CSR. And, notably, it did not emerge in the NFP sample, possibly due to the difference between embedded and peripheral strategies (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013).

### CSR as a Means to Achieve Meaning

We found that many participants, all of whom worked for the corporate organization, viewed CSR as a way of achieving a meaningfulness that they were lacking in their job. The contrast between volunteering and day-to-day work, and particularly the difference in impact on society was noted by participants, with statements such as "I like the volunteering because it does feel that you are able to make a contribution. It might be a small contribution. It might be a big contribution. But it just feels like you are able to give something to the community" (CORP11) or "you really get a sense that there's something a lot bigger out there than just what we're just doing at work" (CORP15) or "I guess with all the negative publicity we're on banks and all the rest of the financial sector, I don't wake up, I guess, in the morning going, "Yes, I work for a bank. Am I contributing to society?" I don't get that really. But – and again, that's where the volunteering days help in that they, I guess, do make me feel a bit better, that – well, today I've actually, I've helped out in a very – and it – what feels to me much more kind of a way" (CORP1).

On the other hand, several of the corporate participants expressed mixed feelings about how their work impacts society, with some noting that although their job does not explicitly benefit society, it provides a basic service that society needs, and noting that the organization's initiatives as a way to provide explicit and tangible benefits to society. This occurred when the participants had not engaged in the extra-role CSR activities, or had done them cynically, and could potentially be seen as trying to find an alternative way of creating meaning. For example, one participant stated she hadn't had time to participate in the volunteering initiatives that the organization encourages, but said "I think indirectly, there's a lot of work that I do that supports our society because we look after people's money and we help them, and we help them make financial decisions and safe guard their cash and their assets and help them buy cars and homes and that type of thing" (CORP3). Similarly, though CORP10 had not participated in any of the organization's CSR initiatives, she felt that she benefited society as her role involved determining and communicating the organization's CSR strategy. CORP2 and CORP14 undertook CSR initiatives because "it's a day off " and because "my whole team was going" and they both recognized that their roles didn't benefit society; but CORP2 still said "I mean, there's obviously the benefit that we deliver to our customers through doing what we do," as did CORP14, stating "We develop the website. Yes. Ultimately, it's the users – the society. Yeah. If you think those customer experience point of view, yeah, I can do something that benefits the society in that aspect. But not that of the general public."

Thus, it appears as though, at least for our participants, that CSR was a way of achieving meaning from one's work; when participants had a job which was already perceived as meaningful (i.e., NFP employees) then they did not feel a need to engage in CSR as a separate activity and when participants were not able or willing to engage in extra-role CSR activities, they reframed their job to identify some meaning, no matter how tenuous.

### Proactive Environmental Behavior

Although this difference between NFP and corporate employees held for the majority of cases, there were three instances of NFP employees who discussed extra-role CSR behavior rather than within-role CSR. All three participants (NFP15, 3 and 2) mentioned environmental initiatives that they had proactively implemented in the workplaces. Participant 15 had introduced a recyclables bin in the office kitchen to collect aluminum cans and was doing the legwork (cleaning and dropping off the cans to the collection center) around that, NFP2 had introduced

recycled copy paper, toilet paper and paper towels to their office, arranged recycling of batteries, as well as questioned senior members of the organization as to why the organization lacks a clear environmental policy, and NFP3 purchased and placed a recycling bin in the communal kitchen, switched default printing setting to grayscale, introduced recycled copy paper, removed individual printers and educated the office on reducing their printing overall.

In trying to understand this finding, we examined a number of plausible explanations. First, we examined whether it was the jobrole that was at play; in other words that these three employees were office-based (and thus needing to seek meaning in extrarole CSR behavior) and the others were all counselors (who could seek meaning from within their role). However, this was not the case because although NFP15 was the Chief Financial Officer and NFP3 was a regional manager, NFP2 was a counselor, and there were 10 other office-based staff who focused on within-role CSR rather than extra-role CSR. We also examined whether it was due to age and gender; however again, there was no distinction between these three and the rest of the sample. Instead, we found two issues which may expand our understanding. These three employees expressed strong pro-environmental values. For example, NFP3 said "I just couldn't believe that it [recycling] wasn't happening here, I mean everybody recycles at home, you know?," NFP2 said, "It seems to me than an organization like this should be leading the way with environmental policy, not lagging behind" and NFP15 said, "I suppose it's just my upbringing. . . this does affect the environment too type of thing." Therefore, it could be that NFP employees' sampled felt that the pro-social/community based element of CSR was incorporated within their core job role but that their core role was not related to corporate environmental responsibility triggering extra-role CSR behavior in those who had strong environmental beliefs.

An alternative, or complementary, reason for this difference may be the relative salience of these particular extra-role CSR behaviors. These activities seemed to be top of mind for these employees not only because they were self-initiated, but also because they had experienced resistance and frustration in implementing them. NFP15 had to cease his can collecting because colleagues claimed that it was attracting ants to the kitchen, NFP2 had been e-mailing his superiors and answering employee surveys for 3–4 years to get these initiatives implemented organization-wide, and NFP3 had to repeatedly educate and correct her staff through the changes. NFP1 mentioned similar environmentally conscious behaviors, but not on the initial prompt, and she engaged in them at the suggestion of a colleague, rather than independently. In other words, it might be the method of data collection that influenced the discussion of extra-role CSR behaviors for these NFP employees but not in other NFP employees. Further research is required to unpack this further.

### DISCUSSION

In this research we wanted to explore how employees make sense of the concept of CSR. Most of our understanding of CSR is at the level of the organization, yet it is employees who are actually engaging in the behavior. If we want to ensure that they do engage in CSR and that the CSR strategies that are set at the level of the organization actually work then we must understand, first and foremost, what employees think about CSR generally.

In a qualitative study of 32 employees in both a NFP and a corporate organization we found that there was not an homogenous view of what CSR entailed. Instead, we found that it depended on how much meaning the employee was able to extract from their core job role. Although, these findings emerged directly from the interviews and analysis without referring to the literature, this neatly mirrors Aguinis and Glavas (2013) distinction between organizational-level embedded CSR and peripheral CSR strategies. Embedded CSR is when CSR is incorporated into the organization's core strategy while peripheral CSR are initiatives that are not directly related to the organization's core strategy (e.g., volunteering). It can be seen that the NFP has an embedded CSR while the corporate organization has peripheral CSR. While Aguinis and Glavas (2013) discussed embedded and peripheral CSR at the organizational level, we found that the distinction occurred at the level of the employee perception and sensemaking.

Interstingly, Aguinis and Glavas (2013) also discuss meaningfulness but only how it moderates between organizational-level CSR and employee-level outcomes such as identification, psychological contracts, justice and engagement. On the other hand, we found that the level of perceived meaningfulness (either at work or in work) led to a perception of CSR as either within-role (presumably an embedded CSR strategy) or extra-role (presumably a peripheral CSR strategy). Thus, it is not just the organizational level CSR strategy itself which affects whether an employee views it as embedded or peripheral at their own level, but their perceived meaningfulness. It is likely that the employees we interviewed from the NFP also perceived higher levels of meaning from their work, as this has been seen in many reviews of meaningfulness at work (e.g., Wrzesniewski et al., 2003; Rosso et al., 2010). Supporting Aguinis and Glavas (2013) propositions, we found that a few participants from the organization with the peripheral strategy identified mismatches between the CSR strategy and the intentions behind it.

An alternative way of interpreting these findings is to see perceptions of CSR as dependent on progress toward goal completion (see e.g., Louro et al., 2007; Unsworth et al., 2013). If an employee has a goal of "creating meaning" that is achieved through his or her core job role then he/she will perceive CSR as embedded within his or her job; the goal is met through tasks that already have to be performed and no additional effort outside the role is needed. On the other hand, if that goal is not achieved in the core job role, either because the organization has a peripheral CSR strategy (e.g., the corporate organization in our sample) or because one's overarching goal of "creating meaning" incorporates other aspects such as proenvironmental goals then additional effort is needed to fully achieve that goal and CSR becomes viewed as extra-role.

So what does this mean for our understanding of microfoundations of CSR? We suggest that, first and foremost, it highlights the importance of examining individual perceptions of CSR. Even with the same organizational-level CSR strategy, people made sense of CSR in different ways, depending on the level of meaning of their work and the degree to which their "meaning" goal was met. This has a number of implications for how we try to increase employee engagement in CSR.

One consideration is the role of job characteristics in relation to employee CSR behavior. Our data indicates that people perceive and engage in CSR differently depending on how it fits with their role and whether their role creates meaningfulness, which are core elements of Hackman and Oldham's (1975) model, yet how to integrate CSR into job design remains unexplored. Interestingly, although those in roles with embedded CSR engaged in a greater amount of CSR by default, those with peripheral CSR tended to engage in and be concerned with a broader range of behavior. This raises interesting questions about how to design a role with embedded CSR without limiting employees' willingness and ability to engage in a broader range of CSR activities and, conversely, how to offer organizational CSR opportunities that appeal to employees' diverse interest while ensuring organizational CSR efforts are strategically cohesive and appear genuine to employees. Future research will be required to develop this understanding.

With a peripheral strategy, a major hurdle for organizations is attracting employee participation in CSR initiatives, whereas the concern with an embedded strategy is getting employees to look beyond the confines of their job role. Therefore, employees with embedded CSR will require different performance management to those with peripheral CSR. This can be conceptualized as encouraging a progress versus commitment orientation; with an embedded CSR strategy rather than having a progress approach where employees are encouraged to achieve their goals as an end point, the organization should reinforce a commitment orientation where achieving their goals is seen as an indicator that they should do more. With a peripheral CSR strategy, because employees are coming from a low 'base level' of CSR a progress orientation, which enables employees to have explicit end goal achievement, is more likely to motivate them to engage in the initiatives that the organization offers.

### REFERENCES


### Limitations

As this research represents an initial exploration into employee perceptions and engagement in CSR behavior, there are some limitations that must be acknowledged. First, as we sought participants on a voluntary basis to talk about CSR, and further, because these participants were from organizations with relatively high CSR engagement, our sample may embody stronger CSR values than organizations without a strong CSR focus or employees who did not respond to the recruitment effort. This is somewhat mitigated by including participants in a broad range of positions within the NFP organization, and by including both employees that had and those that had not participated in corporate volunteering in the corporate sample. However, future research will need to investigate whether there is a marked difference in the way that employees in socially irresponsible organizations view and engage in CSR.

In a similar vein, participants were recruited specifically to discuss CSR, therefore social desirability bias may have been at play with participants wanting to emphasize their benefit to the environment or society at work. This could partially explain the search for meaning within the corporate sample as a defensive reaction to counteract the perception that they (or their organization) are not doing any good for society.

Finally, the salience of extra-role behavior in the three NFP participants who cited difficulty implementing environmental initiatives instead of in-role behavior could be due to the negative response they encountered rather than the importance and effort involved with the act.

Despite these limitations, we believe that the construct of eCSR is an important one as we move forward in our understanding of CSR more broadly. We have distinguished eCSR from other individual-level pro-social behaviors and have shown how employees from different contexts perceive CSR and their engagement in it differently. We hope that this research helps add cement to the micro-foundations of CSR by allowing us to see how employees make sense of CSR and broadening the implications for increasing eCSR engagement.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

AS collected and analyzed data. KU framed introduction and discussion. Both authors edited the manuscript throughout the whole writing process.



**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The reviewer OF and handling Editor declared their shared affiliation, and the handling Editor states that the process nevertheless met the standards of a fair and objective review.

Copyright © 2016 Seivwright and Unsworth. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Is Dealing with Climate Change a Corporation's Responsibility? A Social Contract Perspective

#### Kerrie L. Unsworth<sup>1</sup> \*, Sally V. Russell<sup>2</sup> and Matthew C. Davis<sup>1</sup>

<sup>1</sup> Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, <sup>2</sup> Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

In this paper, we argue that individuals – as members of society – play an important role in the expectations of whether or not companies are responsible for addressing environmental issues, and whether or not governments should regulate them. From this perspective of corporate social responsibility as a social contract we report the results of a survey of 1066 individuals. The aim of the survey was to assess participants' belief in anthropogenic climate change, free-market ideology, and beliefs around who is responsible for dealing with climate change. Results showed that both climate change views and free market ideology have a strong effect on beliefs that companies are responsible for dealing with climate change and on support for regulatory policy to that end. Furthermore, we found that free market ideology is a barrier in the support of corporate regulatory policy. The implications of these findings for research, policy, and practice are discussed.

#### Edited by:

Chelsea R. Willness, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

#### Reviewed by:

François Maon, IESEG School of Management, France Patrick M. Garcia, University of Vermont, USA

> \*Correspondence: Kerrie L. Unsworth k.l.unsworth@leeds.ac.uk

#### Specialty section:

This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 30 October 2015 Accepted: 02 August 2016 Published: 18 August 2016

#### Citation:

Unsworth KL, Russell SV and Davis MC (2016) Is Dealing with Climate Change a Corporation's Responsibility? A Social Contract Perspective. Front. Psychol. 7:1212. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01212 Keywords: corporate social responsibility, environmental responsibility, climate change, pro-environmental behavior, behavior change, micro CSR

## INTRODUCTION

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is based on the assumption that, at any given point in time, there is a social contract between an organization and society in which the organization has not only economic and legal responsibilities but also ethical and philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll, 1991, 1999; Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994, 1999, 2000). Building on Carroll's (1991, 1999, 2000, 2004) work, Dahlsrud (2008) conducted a review of CSR definitions and suggested that the majority of definitions include at least two of the following dimensions (although they very rarely have all of them): societal concerns, interacting with stakeholders and social contract, an economic upside, environmental issues, and actions performed voluntarily. As such, we define CSR as a societal expectation, based on stakeholder perspectives (Carroll, 2004), that organizations should address economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary responsibilities. Within this research we are interested in two areas of CSR that Dahlsrud (2008) found to be less represented in current definitions – that of environmental issues and voluntary vs. forced action – and explore both what the social contract is surrounding these dimensions and how belief in anthropogenic climate change and free market ideology affect those societal views.

Underlying our research is the need to examine the social contract on which CSR rests (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994, 1999, 2000). If society's expectations change, then CSR must as well or else it will face a perceived violation of the social contract. Pinkston and Carroll (1996) note that the demands that the public place on corporations do change; yet most of the research

on CSR considers how the corporations themselves see their responsibilities or, at most, how their customers see their responsibilities (e.g., Mohr et al., 2001; Russell et al., 2016), and not how society more broadly views them. Alongside many others, we argue that because CSR is a social contract there is a need to understand not only what corporations and academics believe CSR to be, but also what society believes CSR to be and thus how it is operationalized in practice (Sacconi, 2006). We do so in the particular realm of environmental responsibility.

Dahlsrud's (2008) analysis shows that the environmental dimension was the least common in definitions of CSR. This is surprising given the urgent need for organizations to address environmental issues and climate change (Pinkse and Kolk, 2009; Winn et al., 2011). Specifically, there is clear evidence that climate change and its effects are having deepening impacts across the globe and governments are contemplating the use of regulations to mitigate against further climate change. In this research we explore climate change as a CSR issue and question whether climate change should be included in the operationalization of CSR. As we are interested in the social contract, we specifically investigate whether society considers that dealing with climate change is something that a corporation should be concerned with.

The second key focus of this research is on voluntary action. Although some have suggested that CSR must be voluntary for it to be considered CSR (Dahlsrud, 2008), it was not included in all definitions reviewed by Dahlsrud (2008) and therefore is debated rather than definitive. Instead, we follow Carroll's (1991) framework that includes not only completely discretionary and ethical (in other words, voluntary but morally urged) CSR but also legally and economically motivated CSR, such as not polluting. Our research, therefore, allows us to explore whether climate change is seen, in the social contract, as being in the discretionary category of CSR actions, or whether the social contract around climate change action is such that it be mandated by government and thus fall in the legal category of Carroll's framework.

### Societal Expectations Regarding a Corporation's Duty to Deal with Climate Change

The first part of our research is with the social contract itself; in other words, does the community view the social contract with corporations as encompassing climate change action and, if it is not discretionary (i.e., that they do see dealing with climate change as being the corporation's duty), then to what extent do they believe it should be legally mandated? We argue that it is important to understand how the community views the social contract with corporations, particularly with regard to the specific concept of climate change, because only then will we have an understanding of expectations from both sides of the social contract.

Marketing research has long looked at society's expectations of corporations with regard to CSR, by examining consumer's expectations. For example, Mohr et al. (2001) conducted indepth interviews with 48 people and found that over half desired moderately high or high levels of CSR from companies. Maignan (2001) surveyed over 300 people from Germany, France, and USA; she found that consumers in France and Germany believed that companies were just as responsible for ethical and discretionary responsibilities as they were for economic outcomes. Moreover, although US consumers believed that companies had more responsibility for economic outcomes than philosophical or ethical endeavors, their scores on the latter (mean scores of 4.43 and 5.12 on a seven-point scale) indicate that they have moderately strong expectations for CSR. This previous research examined CSR more broadly than dealing with climate change and was focused on consumers rather than more general societal expectations, however, it does indicate that there are societal expectations for companies to be involved in CSR. Extrapolating from this, we propose that people in the community will also perceive that dealing with climate change is a corporation's responsibility. In addition, rather than simply looking at mean scores, we also wanted to compare societal expectations for different loci of responsibility. To our knowledge, we are the first to compare loci of responsibility for dealing with climate change and therefore we do not have any evidence to suggest whether expectations for corporations are greater than that for other societal groups. Our first hypothesis, therefore, incorporates both our supposition that there will be high levels of expectations for corporations to deal with climate change and an exploratory examination of differences between societal groups:

Hypothesis 1: Community members will report strong expectations that it is a corporation's duty to deal with climate change. We explore whether these expectations are greater than expectations that other societal groups (the international community, Federal, State and Local governments, individuals and families, and environmental groups) have a duty to deal with climate change.

### Factors Affecting Expectations of Corporations to Deal with Climate Change

Although large-scale studies often measure beliefs in issues such as climate change at a societal level, there will of course be variation amongst the people within that society. Moreover, factors that are related to this variation may act as trigger points for change. Therefore, beyond a description of the current social contract, our research also explores the factors that may affect people's perception of the social contract regarding climate change.

Much of the research around individual-level climate change mitigation, particularly in the workplace, has examined environmental values and beliefs that climate change is real; this research generally shows significant relationships between a person's pro-environmental mitigation actions and his or her beliefs or values (Bamberg and Moser, 2007; Unsworth et al., 2013; Young et al., 2013). In particular, belief in anthropogenic climate change is a key predictor [following the IPCC (2014)], we define belief in anthropogenic climate change as a belief that climate change is occurring and that it is caused by human activities). Although this occurs at the individual level of action,

we suggest that a similar effect could occur when considering organizational actions. In other words, when a person believes in anthropogenic climate change they are also likely to believe that companies should engage in mitigation actions. Our reasoning is this. First, organizations are fundamentally comprised of concentrated human activity (Blackler, 1993). Second, if a person believes that climate change is caused by human activity then, assuming they are not anthropomorphizing organizations (e.g., Bruning and Galloway, 2003), climate change should be seen as being caused by the concentrated human activity existing within organizations. Third, and finally, if they see climate change as being caused by organizations, then they are more likely to hold organizations as responsible for dealing with it (Hamilton, 1978).

Moreover, research has shown that managers who see climate change as a threat to their organization are more likely to follow regulation rather than take on voluntary corporate environmental strategies (Sharma, 2000) therefore if a community member thinks that companies have a duty to deal with CSR, they may be unwilling to rely on managers engaging in it voluntarily (because if the manager sees it as a threat he or she will ignore the duty perceived by others) and instead are more likely to prefer that the company is held legally responsible. Thus, we propose that the more a person believes in anthropogenic climate change, the more likely they are to view climate change as a non-discretionary part of CSR (i.e., ethical or legal) and the more it is viewed as non-discretionary, the more likely it is to be seen as something that should be legally mandated; we therefore hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: Belief in anthropogenic climate change will be positively related to support for corporate regulatory policy (i.e., legal responsibility), mediated by a positive relationship with beliefs that corporations have a duty to deal with climate change (i.e., non-discretionary responsibility).

So far, we have followed the traditional thinking that belief in anthropogenic climate change (and its corollary for practical implication, changing people's belief in anthropogenic climate change) will be a panacea for changing the public expectations related to a corporation's responsibility for dealing with climate change. But will this be enough? We propose that as well as beliefs about climate change, when we consider the social contract with corporations we also need to consider beliefs about the perceived broader role of organizations in society; in other words, we suggest that free market ideology is necessary to consider.

An ideology is a worldview that is comprised of "a system of values, norms, and political preferences" (Carvalho, 2007, p. 225) and a free market ideology is defined as the "tendency to view market-based processes and outcomes not simply as efficient, but as inherently fair, legitimate, and just" (Jost et al., 2003, p. 55). It is 'the invisible hand' (Smith, 1776) that will take care of everything through market demand and competition.

Previous research has shown a main effect for free market ideology on belief in anthropogenic climate change; namely that it is significantly related to belief in anthropogenic climate change mediated by environmental apathy (Heath and Gifford, 2006), with stronger support for the free market corresponding to greater environmental apathy and in turn lower belief in anthropogenic climate change. However, we propose that free market ideology will have an additional effect to its relationship with anthropogenic climate change, and that is its effect on whether a person believes that dealing with climate change is a legal, ethical or discretionary responsibility of the organization. That is, we propose that free market ideology will affect a community member's perception that a corporation should be held legally responsible for dealing with climate change. Logically, if an individual believes that the free market will solve the problem, that person should also hold the belief that the company is not directly responsible as the market will decide if the company needs to do anything; if consumers don't want environmentally friendly products and services then why should the company have to provide them? Indeed, as noted earlier, Maignan (2001) found differences in consumer expectations of CSR across countries which she attributed to differing ideologies.

Empirical evidence for this can be seen in studies examining political orientation. Belief in the free market is a key differentiator of political orientations; those on the right (Conservatives, Republicans, Liberals) have strong beliefs in a key role for the free market and thus a weak role for government, while those on the left (Labor, Democrats, Greens) have less strong beliefs in the ability of the free market to overcome social and environmental problems (Heath and Gifford, 2006). Research has shown that those on the right tend to not only believe less in anthropogenic climate change (Dunlap and McCright, 2008; McCright, 2011; McCright and Dunlap, 2011) but, importantly, they are also less likely to support policies to mitigate climate change (Unsworth and Fielding, 2014).

In addition, we argue that these two factors, belief in anthropogenic climate change and free market ideology, will interact. As discussed earlier, those who believe in anthropogenic climate change should, rationally, believe that all humans are responsible and thus that corporates (as human collectives) are also responsible for dealing with climate change; there should therefore be a positive relationship between anthropogenic climate change and belief in corporate responsibility to deal with climate change. However, if one has a strong free market ideology this relationship will be stronger than if one has a weak free market ideology because of the synergistic effects of free market ideology and anthropogenic climate change. In the first instance, the combination of a strong free market ideology and low belief in anthropogenic climate change will result in very low perceptions that a company has a duty to deal with climate change because the two beliefs reinforce each other; but having a strong free market ideology will not greatly affect the person's perception of a corporation's duty to deal with climate change if they have a high belief in anthropogenic climate change. This is because there is a strong logical relationship between believing that humans are responsible (high belief in anthropogenic climate change) and believing that companies, alongside others, are responsible for dealing with it. In the second instance, when free market ideology is weak, then a weak belief in anthropogenic climate change won't be as detrimental to beliefs in corporate responsibility to deal with climate change and the resulting perception of corporate responsibility will not

be as low; hence the relationship between anthropogenic climate change and a belief in corporate responsibility to deal with climate change will not be as strong. Overall, this means that the relationship between belief in anthropogenic climate change and perceptions that corporations have a duty to deal with climate change will be stronger when free market ideology is strong compared to when it is weak. Hypotheses 2 and 3 are illustrated in **Figure 1**.

Hypothesis 3: The mediated relationship between belief in anthropogenic climate change and support for regulatory policy via belief in corporate responsibility to deal with climate change will be moderated by free market ideology. This interaction is such that when free market ideology is strong, the mediated relationships will be stronger than when free market ideology is weak.

### MATERIALS AND METHODS

### Sample

We used a large accredited research panel, Qualtrics, to access a wide range of participants from across Australia and across different within-nation subgroups. In total, 1066 respondents participated; of these, 50.1% were male and they ranged in age from 18 to 82 (mean age was 45.33 years, standard deviation was 15.12 years). Participants came from a range of educational backgrounds (8.5% left school at age 15, 22.0% had a high school education only, 36.7% had a trade qualification, 24.8% had a university Bachelor degree, and 8.1% had a Masters or Ph.D. qualification) and political orientations [35.3% supported for the Labor Party (mainstream center-left-wing), 32.6% supported the Liberal Party (mainstream right-wing), 5.0% supported The Nationals (rural right-wing), 10.6% supported The Greens (left-wing), and 16.6% supported Independents].

The study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations and approval of The University of Western Australia's Ethics Committee. The survey was anonymous and no identifying information was collected. Informed consent was provided by participants clicking on a survey button and continuing to the survey after reading the online information sheet.

### Measures

We measured belief in anthropogenic climate change by asking participants, "How much do you think humans contribute to/cause climate change? (as a percent of overall climate change; if you do not believe that climate change is occurring, please answer '0')?" Responses ranged from 0 to 100; the mean response was 54.77% and the standard deviation was 30.18%.

Free market ideology was measured using the five-item measure developed by Heath and Gifford (2006). Participants were introduced to the concept of a free-market before the questions. The items are: "The free-market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption" (R); "The free-market system may be efficient for resource allocation, but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice" (R); The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns; Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development and "An economic system based on free-markets, unrestrained by government interference, automatically works best to meet human needs" and participants responded on a five-point scale from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree." The internal reliability of the scale was adequate (α = 0.67).

We measured the different loci of responsibility to deal with climate change by asking participants, "Whose responsibility is it to address climate change?" for seven different groups: National government, industry/companies, the international community, state governments, individual/families, local authorities, and environmental groups. Corporate environmental responsibility was captured with the item "Industry/companies." Participants responded on a seven-point scale from "Not at all" to "Completely" for each locus of responsibility.

Finally, support for company regulatory policy was measured by asking participants the degree to which they supported a policy or policy option that could be used by a Federal Government which focused on "Stronger regulation of companies and their carbon emissions." Participants responded on a five-point scale from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree."

### RESULTS

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables are presented in **Table 1**. As expected, there was a significant


TABLE 1 | Means, standard deviations, and correlations among key variables.

<sup>∗</sup>p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.

fpsyg-07-01212 August 16, 2016 Time: 13:38 # 5

negative relationship between free market ideology and belief in anthropogenic climate change (r = −0.25, p < 0.001).

In general support of our first hypothesis, and as can be seen in **Table 2**, on the whole, the community members in our sample believed that companies were to be held responsible for climate change (M = 5.41 on a seven-point scale). Only 26% of participants rated corporate environmental responsibility below the mid-way point on the scale. When comparing perceived corporate's responsibility to deal with climate change to other loci

TABLE 2 | Means and standard deviations of the different locus of responsibilities.




B, unstandardized regression coefficient; SE, standard error of regression coefficient.

of responsibility we found that people thought that companies were more responsible for dealing with climate change than the international community (t = 2.21, df = 1063, p < 0.05), the State Government (t = 5.64, df = 1063, p < 0.001), individuals and families (t = 17.61, df = 1063, p < 0.001), local authorities (t = 11.17, df = 1063, p < 0.001), and environmental groups (t = 12.97, df = 1063, p < 0.001) but there was no difference in perceived responsibility when compared with Federal Government (t = −0.34, df = 1063, p = 0.74). Thus, the Australian community believes that companies (together with National Governments) should address climate change.

We assessed Hypothesis 2 using Model 4 in Hayes' (2012) PROCESS Macro. Overall, there was support for our hypothesis. Belief in anthropogenic climate change was significantly related to the mediator, corporate responsibility to deal with climate change (B = 0.03, SE(B) = 0.002, p < 0.001), and the mediator was significantly related to company regulatory policy (B = 0.26, SE(B) = 0.02, p < 0.001) after controlling for gender and age. The hypothesized indirect effect of belief in anthropogenic climate change on regulatory policy via perceived corporate responsibility was significant at 0.008 (SE = 0.001, 95% CI [0.006, 0.009]). However, there was also a significant direct effect (0.006, SE = 0.001, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.004, 0.008]) indicating partial mediation. In total, the model accounted for 32.6% of the variance in regulatory policy, F(4,1043) = 126.26, p < 0.001. We tested the robustness of the model by also including education and political orientation as control variables but these were not significantly related to support for regulatory policy when gender and age were included and did not affect the hypothesized relationships.

To assess whether free market ideology affected this mediated relationship, we conducted a moderated mediated analysis using Model 8 of the PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2012), using centered variables and controlling for age and gender. The results shown in **Table 3** indicate that although the perceived amount of human contribution was significantly related to perceived corporate responsibility to deal with climate change (B = 0.03, SE(B) = 0.002, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.02, 0.03]), this was moderated by free market ideology (B = 0.01, SE(B) = 0.002, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.003, 0.012]; **Figure 2**). Moreover, free market ideology had a strong direct effect on corporate responsibility to deal with climate change over and above the interaction (B = −0.53, SE(B) = 0.07, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.68, −0.38]). This moderation was also shown to affect support for 'policy regulating companies' carbon emissions

indirectly via corporate responsibility to deal with climate change (B = 0.24, SE(B) = 0.02, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.21, 0.27]), however, there was no direct effect of the moderation on support for company regulatory policy (B = 0.001, SE(B) = 0.001, p = 0.86, 95% CI [−0.002, 0.003]). Instead, there was a further strong negative relationship between free market ideology and support for regulatory policy (B = −0.27, SE(B) = 0.04, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.35, −0.18]). With regard to the conditional indirect effects, although indirect effects at high and low levels of free market ideology were significant and positive, the mediated indirect effect was strongest at high levels of free market ideology (0.008; 95% CI [0.006, 0.01]) and lowest at low levels of free market ideology (0.005, 95% CI [0.004, 0.007]), as expected.

Simple slopes analysis showed that although the positive relationship between anthropogenic climate change and perceived responsibility for companies to deal with climate change was significant at both high (one standard deviation above the mean) and low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of free market ideology, it was much stronger when free market ideology was high (t = 4.09, p < 0.001; t = 2.22, p < 0.05; respectively). This is in line with our hypothesis that when free market ideology is strong, the mediated relationships should be stronger (because a weak belief in anthropogenic climate change will produce very low perceptions of corporate responsibility to deal with climate change and support for legal regulation) than when free market ideology is weak (because a weak belief in anthropogenic climate change won't be as detrimental to belief in corporate responsibility to deal with climate change). An alternative way to interpret this interaction is to examine the simple slopes between free market ideology and perceived corporate responsibility to deal with climate change at different levels of anthropogenic climate change. This is statistically identical yet reveals additional understanding of the relationship. In this case, simple slopes analysis revealed that there was a significant negative relationship between free market ideology and corporate responsibility to deal with climate change at one standard deviation below the mean of anthropogenic climate change (t = −3.79, p < 0.001), but at the mean and at one standard deviation above the mean there was no significant relationship (t = −1.43, p = 0.15; t = −0.52, p = 0.60; respectively). To determine the point at which the relationship between free market ideology and perceived corporate responsibility was completely attenuated, we varied the percentage of human contribution to climate change and found that a non-significant relationship occurred at 45%; in other words, those who believed that less than 45% of climate change was due to human causes had a significant relationship between free market ideology and the perception that corporations were responsible for dealing with climate change.

Overall, the results suggest that both climate change views and free market ideology have a strong effect on perceptions that companies are responsible for dealing with climate change and on support for regulatory policy. Although focusing on increasing beliefs in anthropogenic climate change is important to help buffer the negative effects of free market ideology, particularly in perceptions of whether corporates are responsible for dealing with climate change, the strong direct effect between free market ideology and policy support and the absence of the intervening buffering effect of climate change beliefs means that free market ideology is a clear hindrance to implementing corporate regulatory policy.

### DISCUSSION

In this research, we built on the ideas of Carroll (1991, 1999, 2000) and Donaldson and Dunfee (1994, 1999, 2000) and sought to understand the social contract underlying CSR, particularly with regards to climate change; namely, whether individuals in the community considered companies to be responsible for dealing with climate change and whether they would support government policy on regulating companies to do so. We argued that this was important to more fully understand our conceptualization of CSR. We found that people thought companies and government had a greater duty to deal with climate change compared to individuals/families, international

community, and local associations; that the more an individual believed that humans contributed to climate change the more they held companies responsible to deal with climate change; but that those who believed in a free market were less likely to hold companies responsible or support regulatory policy particularly when they also did not believe in anthropogenic climate change.

We believe these findings are important from both a theoretical and a practical standpoint. Theoretically, most research that has examined antecedents of organizational-level CSR policies has focused on institutional and organizational factors and little empirical research has examined the role that individuals may play (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; with the exception of individuals as consumers, see e.g., Russell et al., 2016). Of course, this was not explicitly multi-level research, in that we did not measure specific organizational reactions to individuals' perceptions of responsibility, however, we believe that this adds to the growing field of research that is building the micro-foundations of CSR.

Moreover, we found that free market ideology is a substantial barrier to believing that companies have a responsibility to deal with climate change and supporting government policy toward that purpose. Previously, research on free market ideology has focused on the relationship between ideology and belief in anthropogenic climate change (e.g., Heath and Gifford, 2006) and ideology was assumed to be behind country differences in perceptions of CSR (Maignan, 2001). However, we argued that in addition to the mechanistic model (where free market ideology affects belief in climate change which then affects corporate responsibility beliefs), that free market ideology will play an important independent role as a moderator when we also consider the organizational context.

Indeed, we found this to be the case. We found that when free market ideology was weak then even a moderate level of belief in anthropogenic climate change would be associated with a perception that companies should deal with climate change. However, when free market ideology was strong then belief in anthropogenic climate change was very important. The combination of both strong free market ideology and little belief in anthropogenic climate change led to extremely low levels of perceived corporate responsibility to deal with climate change. Although we recognize that the effect size of this moderation is relatively low, given the importance of the topic and the multiplied error variance in moderation variables we believe that this is still an important finding.

A second finding, however, was that free market ideology was more central than we had originally thought. Although we predicted mediated moderation (where free market ideology moderates not only the relationship to the mediator, namely corporate responsibility, but also the relationship to the outcome variable, namely policy support), we found only moderated mediation. In other words, we found only a first stage moderation where free market ideology interacted with climate change beliefs on perceived corporate responsibility to deal with climate change (c.f., Langfred, 2004). We had also expected that free market ideology would interact with climate change beliefs to influence policy support, but instead we found only the indirect effect (via responsibility) and a direct main effect. Although this component of our hypothesis was not supported, we believe that it signals the strength of the effect of free market ideology. Even a strong belief in anthropogenic climate change is not able to moderate the effect of free market ideology on policy support. In other words, convincing people about anthropogenic climate change may result in increased perceptions of corporate responsibility even for those with a strong free market ideology and this may have some knock-on effect to policy support, but it will have only a limited impact on this outcome in buffering the overall effects of free market ideology.

Policy-makers therefore face an uphill battle in regulating organizations to be more environmentally responsible. Although the government was seen as just as responsible as corporations for dealing with climate change (presumably because of their ability to create policy), their task will not be easy. It is not enough to convince the community that climate change is real and that human activity is causing it. While this will help to some extent, its effect, particularly on policy, may well be limited. Those with a strong free market ideology will likely be those embedded within the capitalist system and potentially constitute a number of stakeholders both politically and organizationally. While some research has shown that demonstrating scientific consensus can counteract the negative effects of free market ideology on beliefs in climate change (Lewandowsky et al., 2013), it is unlikely that it will affect their views on policy support given the lack of interaction we found in our research. Instead, if regulatory environmental policy aimed at companies is desired, then other forms of engagement will be required.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of our research and in doing so provide fruitful avenues for future research. The first limitation of our research is the cross-sectional nature of the design. This design was appropriate for our purpose of investigating the relationships in our study but we are unable to demonstrate causality between variables. It is not known, for example if a strong free-market ideology acts as an attention bias for scientific evidence on climate change. Such a bias may explain why there is a negative relationship between freemarket ideology and belief in anthropogenic climate change. More knowledge of the direction of causality may enable future researchers and practitioners to design more effective campaigns to raise understanding and knowledge of anthropogenic climate change, and motivate future action.

The second limitation of research concerns the sample used in our study. Whilst this was a broad sample of Australian individuals and reflected the political diversity of the country, we must acknowledge the potential for culture to influence individuals' perceptions regarding the implications of, and required action in response to, climate change (e.g., Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006). Future research exploring the consistency of our findings in other countries, particularly those with more collectivist cultures or where environmental regulation of organizations is more stringent, would further our understanding of contextual contingencies and enable the design of more tailored campaigns. Finally, the measures used in our study displayed some limitations. The measure of anthropogenic climate change did not distinguish between those who did not believe in climate change at all and those who believed in

naturally caused climate change; the measure of support for climate change regulation did not distinguish between those who supported any regulation and those who supported climate change regulation in particular; and the reliability of the free market ideology measure, while adequate, was not as high as one would ideally like.

Nonetheless, our research may be useful for policy makers and practitioners in their efforts to encourage future climate change action. Indeed, it may be that interventions designed to change behavior may need to ensure that they are concordant with the target's ideology. Research suggests that goal concordance may be an important consideration in the success of pro-environmental behavior change interventions (Unsworth et al., 2013). In this way, for those individuals with a free market ideology it may be more important to appeal to economic goals and present a strong business case, rather than attempting to change their belief in anthropogenic climate change.

Our study reinforces the need to consider the social contract and, in particular, individual citizens and employees when examining the antecedents to organizational-level CSR (Carroll, 2004). The positive relationship between belief in anthropogenic climate change and beliefs that corporates are responsible for dealing with climate change and regulation to that end underlines the role that ordinary citizens may play in shaping the political and regulatory environment in which organizations operate. Our findings further illustrate the complexity of the challenge facing policy makers seeking to introduce environmental regulation, with free market ideology appearing to be a barrier to holding organizations responsible or supporting regulatory policy. This suggests that designing interventions and campaigns that pursue action on climate change will require multidisciplinary input (c.f., Kilbourne et al., 2002; Davis et al., 2014), e.g., from economists

### REFERENCES


and political scientists as well as psychologists, in order to capitalize on non-environmental goals and present credible economic arguments that can appeal to those whose belief in the "invisible hand" is strong.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

The study was designed and led by KU, with data collected as part of a wider project supported by a grant held jointly by KU and SR. KU led the data analysis and write-up. SR and MD contributed to data interpretation and manuscript drafting.

### FUNDING

This work was carried out with financial support from the Australian Government (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF). The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views of the Commonwealth or NCCARF, and neither the Commonwealth nor NCCARF accept responsibility for information or advice contained herein. Unsworth et al. (2011). What about me? Climate change coping and adaptation in vulnerable populations. Australian National Climate Change Adaptation Research Fund (Category 1 funding).

### ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Australian National Climate Change Adaptation Research Fund in helping to fund the data collection underpinning this study.



**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2016 Unsworth, Russell and Davis. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Age and Employee Green Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis

#### Brenton M. Wiernik <sup>1</sup> , Stephan Dilchert <sup>2</sup> \* and Deniz S. Ones <sup>1</sup>

*<sup>1</sup> Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA, <sup>2</sup> Department of Management, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA*

Recent economic and societal developments have led to an increasing emphasis on organizational environmental performance. At the same time, demographic trends are resulting in increasingly aging labor forces in many industrialized nations. Commonly held stereotypes suggest that older workers are less likely to be environmentally responsible than younger workers. To evaluate the degree to which such age differences are present, we meta-analyzed 132 independent correlations and 336 *d-*values based on 4676 professional workers from 22 samples in 11 countries. Contrary to popular stereotypes, age showed small positive relationships with pro-environmental behaviors, suggesting that older adults engaged in these workplace behaviors slightly more frequently. Relationships with age appeared to be linear for overall, Conserving, Avoiding Harm, and Taking Initiative pro-environmental behaviors, but non-linear trends were observed for Transforming and Influencing Others behaviors.

#### Edited by:

*Ante Glavas, Kedge Business School, France*

#### Reviewed by:

*Sally Russell, University of Leeds, UK Chelsea R. Willness, University of Saskatchewan, Canada David Allen Jones, University of Vermont, USA*

\*Correspondence: *Stephan Dilchert stephan.dilchert@baruch.cuny.edu*

#### Specialty section:

*This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology*

Received: *04 August 2015* Accepted: *01 February 2016* Published: *02 March 2016*

#### Citation:

*Wiernik BM, Dilchert S and Ones DS (2016) Age and Employee Green Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Front. Psychol. 7:194. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00194* Keywords: age differences, sustainability, individual environmental performance, employee green behaviors, workplace pro-environmental behaviors, environmental sustainability at work

## INTRODUCTION

Interest is growing among corporations and non-profit organizations to reduce the environmental footprints of their operations. Organizational environmental sustainability has been defined as organizations operating in such a way that the present needs of employees, decision makers, and stakeholders are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). An increasing number of organizations realize that interventions toward this end need to take into account organizational members to achieve environmental sustainability (Dilchert and Ones, 2012; Ones and Dilchert, 2012b). A recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (2011) indicated that nearly two-thirds of the organizations sampled engaged in some kind of environmental sustainability initiative, and about half had a formal policy that addressed workplace sustainability. A systematic investigation of Fortune 500 companies revealed that more than 85% reported environmental sustainability efforts (D'Mello et al., 2011). The majority of these efforts fall into the domains of recycling and reduction of energy use, but pollution prevention and other proactive efforts are also reported (Schmit, 2011). Importantly, involvement from organizational members is essential for most sustainability initiatives (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012).

The shift toward a greener economy is creating new occupations and adding new responsibilities to existing occupations to embed environmental sustainability as a core part of job performance (Dierdorff et al., 2013). Research using the O∗NET taxonomy so far has established more than 60 occupations for which tasks, knowledge, skills, and other characteristics required for successful performance have changed to incorporate environmental aspects (Dierdorff et al., 2013). However, while this shift has created new green jobs and changed the core nature of job performance existing for many jobs, it also now requires employees in all jobs to display behaviors that, while discretionary, contribute to the organization's triple bottom line; environmental performance must be deeply embedded into individual and organizational behavior to reach sustained business success (Anderson and White, 2011; Aguinis and Glavas, 2013). Ones and Dilchert (2009) suggested the label employee green behaviors for the "scalable actions and behaviors that employees engage in that are linked with and contribute to or detract from environmental sustainability" (Ones and Dilchert, 2012a, p. 87). Employee green behaviors can be part of any dimension of job performance and can be either required or discretionary, depending on the nature of the job (Campbell and Wiernik, 2015). The burgeoning interest in this important performance domain is based in part on the realization that social, economic, and environmental performance of organizations are interconnected (Elkington, 1998/2002; Jackson, 2012) and that individual performance models need to account for the tripartite composition of organizational performance in order to contribute to organizational sustainability (Ones and Dilchert, 2012b). Thus, it is not surprising that organizations are seeking to understand how employees' behaviors at work affect the natural environment and which personal characteristics lead to good and poor environmental performance at the individual level (investigations so far have included characteristics such as positive affect, Bissing-Olson et al., 2013; personality traits, Kim et al., 2014; job attitudes, Paillé et al., 2013; and personal norms and environmental beliefs, Scherbaum et al., 2008; see Norton et al., 2015 for a review).

At the same time, demographic trends over the last three decades have led to increasingly aging labor forces in many industrialized nations (European Commission (DG ECFIN) and Economic Policy Committee (AWG), 2012). In the U.S., individuals age 45 and older now represent nearly 40% of workers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). Since 1995, the labor force participation rate has increased for men and women 55 years or older, while holding steady or declining for younger age groups (Mosisa and Hipple, 2006). In addition, an increasing number of adults who reach retirement age decide to stay in the workforce (Pew Research Center, 2009). These well-documented demographic trends have made questions regarding environmentally relevant behaviors of aging workforces increasingly salient.

Common stereotypes reflected in the media and popular press indicate that older individuals are purportedly less environmentally-concerned than younger ones (see Irvine, 2012; Twenge et al., 2012). Older workers are also often characterized as inflexible, unwilling to adopt new habits, and unable to learn new skills (Dennis and Thomas, 2007). Based on these assumptions, organizations and researchers have expressed concern that older workers will be more resistant to changing their work behavior to be more sustainable (e.g., by using tablet technology to reduce paper, using video-conferencing to avoid excessive travel, or generally putting environmental sustainability ahead of personal concerns; cf. The White House Office of the Press, Secretary, 2015). Some authors have also suggested that older workers are more likely to have health problems that prevent many sustainable behaviors (e.g., using the stairs, reducing heating, and cooling use; Afacan, 2015). These age-related stereotypes have led many organizations to express concern that aging workforces will interfere with organizational environmental sustainability goals (Davis-Peccoud, 2013). These concerns have begun to influence management practices in many organizations. For example, beliefs about Millenials' supposedly stronger environmental concern has led environmentally-minded organizations to target young people in recruitment (e.g., Epstein and Howes, 2006; Hasek, 2008; Needleman, 2008; Lancaster and Stillman, 2010; Cachinko Social Recruitment Marketing Solutions, 2011; Ones and Dilchert, 2013; Lui, 2014), practices which disadvantage older workers and place organizations at risk for legal liability (Giang, 2015). In their review of age–job performance relations, Ng and Feldman (2008) observed that similarly negative agerelated stereotypes are present for many domains of job performance (e.g., safety performance, interpersonal skills, job dedication, adaptability, computer skills) and influence organizational recruitment, selection, evaluation, and promotion practices. Because negative age stereotypes for environmental sustainability are widespread and have begun to influence human resource management practice, it is important to determine whether these beliefs have any empirical support in reality. The aim of the present paper is to do so by systematically examining age differences in a variety of employee green behaviors.

### Psychological Factors Suggesting Age Differences in Green Behaviors

Besides layperson beliefs about age differences in environmental sustainability, such beliefs are also widespread among environmental sustainability researchers. For example, many environmental psychologists have argued that older individuals are more deeply invested in a "dominant social paradigm" which emphasizes personal concerns and economic growth over environmental well-being, making them less likely to perform pro-environmental behaviors (Dunlap and van Liere, 1978; but cf. Otto and Kaiser, 2014, who argued that repeated exposure to environmental crises over their lifespans may lead to higher levels of environmental awareness among older individuals). Gerontological researchers have also suggested that older individuals' supposed unwillingness to change habits is a key barrier to pro-environmental behavior in aging populations (Pillemer et al., 2011). Many studies have found environmental concern to be higher among younger individuals (see Wiernik et al., 2013, for a meta-analysis), suggesting that older individuals may see less need for environmentally-responsible actions.

Age differences in other psychological characteristics might also contribute to perceived or real differences in employee green behaviors. For example, the personality traits sociability and openness tend to decrease with age (Roberts et al., 2006), and younger workers hold stronger values for adaptability and social relationships (Yeatts et al., 2000; Smola and Sutton, 2002). Older workers are also less willing to learn to use new technologies (Czaja et al., 2006) and tend to prefer stability (Henry, 2000), often to the degree that they will change only when under social pressure or when there are clear benefits to the change (Morris and Venkatesh, 2000). These factors suggest that older workers may be less likely to perform employee green behaviors, especially if those behaviors involve changing habits, using innovative technologies, or interacting with coworkers.

However, older employees also hold stronger values for properly completing work, frugality, and responsibility (Morris and Venkatesh, 2000; Smola and Sutton, 2002), and the personality traits conscientiousness and agreeableness tend to increase with age (Roberts et al., 2006). These characteristics are at the core of many pro-environmental behaviors, such as reducing use, avoiding waste, and proper waste disposal, so age-related differences in these traits suggest that older workers may perform more of these behaviors. Thus, while older workers may be less willing to change their habits to benefit environmental sustainability, they may also have stronger natural tendencies to perform resource conservation behaviors with positive environmental impact.

### Research Suggesting Absence of Age Differences in Green Behaviors

While the psychological differences cited above suggest that different categories of employee green behaviors may vary systematically with age, other research suggests that substantial age differences are unlikely. In large scale meta-analyses of 10 dimensions of job performance, Ng and Feldman (2008) observed negligible to weak age relations with core task performance, creativity, training performance, contextual performance, safety performance, and counterproductive behaviors. The only performance dimensions with more substantial age relations were contextual performance directed at tasks and withdrawal behaviors, both of which favored older workers. Similarly, Ng and Feldman's (2012) meta-analysis found that age relations with work attitudes, training participation, proactivity, interpersonal performance, and even support for organizational change efforts were also negligible. The absence of substantial age differences for other domains of work behaviors and attitudes suggests that large differences for employee green behaviors may be unlikely.

A recent meta-analytic investigation of environmental behaviors in non-work settings also suggests that age differences in employee green behaviors are likely to be small (Wiernik et al., 2013). Wiernik and colleagues found that relations between age and most environmental behaviors were negligibly small. In fact, older individuals were somewhat more likely to engage in behaviors that avoided environmental harm, conserved resources, or involved engaging with the natural world in their personal lives. Based on these results, we expect that age differences in environmental behaviors in work settings will be similarly small. However, there are important differences between pro-environmental behavior in personal life and employee green behaviors (Ones and Dilchert, 2013). Employee behavior in the workplace is typically both more observable and more constrained by organizational requirements and social norms. Individuals also perform different social roles at home vs. at work (Super, 1980). The distinctions between these two contexts suggest that the nomological network of these behaviors in occupational settings could differ notably compared to when they are investigated in non-work settings (Ones and Dilchert, 2012b). With regard to age, for example, organizational rules may require all employees to follow certain waste disposal procedures, attenuating any differences between younger and older employees. Older employees may also have more experience and political resources in organizations; they may be the only employees with sufficient power to implement sustainability initiatives or adopt innovations, leading to a positive relation between these behaviors and age. Because of the situational differences between work and non-work settings, there is a need to evaluate whether different categories of employee green behaviors systematically vary with age in the workplace context. Moreover, the implications of agegroup differences might be more immediately relevant in organizational settings, potentially necessitating adjustments to human resources interventions such as recruiting, selection, or training in relation to organizational sustainability goals.

## The Present Study

The present study is a systematic, large-scale investigation of the relations between age and employee green behaviors. Research establishing if and how age groups differ in their environmental performance is crucial in guiding organizations to create and implement initiatives which are effective in bringing about positive environmental change. If older and younger individuals really differ in the frequency and kinds of pro-environmental behaviors they engage in at work, there may be implications for how organizations adapt environmental initiatives—for example through education, socialization, training, job redesign—to meet the needs of specific groups and increasingly agediverse workforces in general. Such implications are routinely investigated by applied psychologists for many domains of work behavior (e.g., Ng and Feldman, 2008). In this paper, we present the first investigation of age differences in a broad set of employee green behaviors<sup>1</sup> . In doing so, we examine age differences in overall green behaviors as well as specific subdomains. Furthermore, we conduct this investigation in 22 independent samples from 11 countries, in an effort to assess the generalizability of our findings.

For this study, we adopted the conceptualization of employee green behaviors described by Ones and Dilchert (2012a). These authors conducted a large-scale critical incidents study to catalog the full range of environmentally-relevant employee behaviors. Using the results of this study, the authors developed

<sup>1</sup>When applied psychologists examine age differences in the workplace, they are typically interested in how age relates to relevant work behaviors at one point in time (see, for example, Ng and Feldman, 2008, who meta-analyzed crosssectional age differences on 10 dimensions of job performance). This is because any observed age differences on relevant criterion variables have important workforce management implications for organizations, regardless of whether they stem from maturation or generational effects, or both. Aging research sometimes employs longitudinal investigations to disentangle these two types of effects. Longitudinal and cross-sectional designs answer different questions and are associated with their own set of deficiencies (cf. Baltes, 1968). In line with existing workplace research on age, our research is focused on age differences in environmental performance at one point in time as well as with the implications of these differences for organizational policies and interventions.

a content-based taxonomy that consists of hierarchicallyorganized behavioral categories that are successively more homogeneous in their content. The taxonomy consists of 16 specific homogenous subclusters of green behaviors organized into five broad categories—Conserving, Avoiding Harm, Transforming<sup>2</sup> , Influencing Others, and Taking Initiative. The categories are distinguished in terms of their behavioral content (what employees actually do) and achieve conceptual coherence on the basis of their functional core (i.e., what purpose they serve) and psychological underpinnings (individual tendencies and values that motivate the behavior). Descriptions of these five categories, their behavioral subclusters, and example behaviors are provided in **Table 1**. We adopted the Ones and Dilchert (2012a) taxonomy as an organizing framework for the present study because of its comprehensive, conceptual breadth, and relative parsimony.

**Table 1** also describes psychological factors that may contribute to age differences in each of these employee green behavior categories. For example, behaviors in the Conserving categories share a functional core of thrift and responsibility, so age-related increases in conscientiousness (Roberts et al., 2006) suggest that this category may be positively related to age. Conversely, behaviors in the Transforming category require a degree of adaptability and openness to change, so age-related preferences for workplace stability (Smola and Sutton, 2002) and declines in openness (Roberts et al., 2006) suggest that these behaviors may be negatively related to age. In this study, we examine whether any of these psychological factors manifest as age differences in employee green behaviors and assess whether widely-held age-related environmental sustainability stereotypes have any basis in reality. Our study is intended to guide both researchers and human resources practitioners by empirically establishing the potential relevance of age for employees' environmental performance at work.

### METHODS

### Samples and Procedure

This study is based on data collected as part of a centrally coordinated, international, multi-organization benchmarking study conducted for a large multinational organization. Data were collected from 11 different countries and at two points in time (wave 1: 2010; wave 2: 2011). The same procedure was employed to recruit one sample from each country in each year, resulting in 22 independent samples, two from each of the following countries: Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Poland, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The countries sampled come from 6 of the 10 GLOBE regions (Anglo, Confucian, Eastern European, Germanic, Latin American, Latin European; see House et al., 2004) and represent about 35% of the world's population and 60% of the world's economic activity in terms of gross domestic product. Although these countries were selected based on suitability for the benchmarking study, they provide a strong representation of the industrialized world.

Participants within each country were recruited through a professional survey research firm. In total, 4676 employed adults were surveyed; sample sizes ranged from 202 to 224 across the 22 samples. Participants worked in a broad selection of organizations within each country (i.e., sampling was not limited to a single company nor limited to "green" companies, industries, or jobs). They were carefully stratified to be demographically representative of the respective country's professional workforce. Professionals represented the population of interest for the benchmarking study, and accordingly a large majority of participants classified themselves as midlevel management (39.4%), upper-management (26.1%), or topmanagement (20.4%). The focus on professional workers meant that we could assess a wide range of discretionary employee green behaviors from a variety of areas, including those which employees in less complex jobs often do not have opportunity to engage in. These included behaviors that fall into strategic or policy domains or are aimed to encourage pro-environmental behaviors in others (see below).

Overall, participants were employed in more than 23 industries (the survey used a 23-category industry scale but allowed participants to also indicate "other"). Appendix A in Supplementary Material presents the age distributions of the 22 samples. Each sample represents the full range of ages present in the country's professional working population. Deviations from national populations' age medians (obtained from Central Intelligence Agency, 2008) can be attributed to the fact that we studied professional workers, rather than the general population or overall labor force.

### Measures

#### Age

Employee age was measured in years using a continuous scale, allowing for the computation of correlations, as well as age group mean differences once the age variable was polytomized.

#### Employee Green Behaviors

Survey items were chosen from a larger, pre-calibrated item pool to assess each of the five broad content categories of employee green behaviors described by Ones and Dilchert (2012a) with the goal of picking items that are widely applicable to professional workforces. The original English survey items were professionally translated into the following languages: Mandarin (simplified and traditional), German, Japanese, Portuguese, Spanish (Europe and Latin America), Polish, Russian, and French (as an option in the French-speaking part of Switzerland). Back translation and cultural/linguistic review (carried out by a professional survey translation provider) were used to ensure that the different language versions appropriately reflected the intent of the original survey. Measurement and structural equivalence of the different language versions of the surveys were established (see below for analytic details).

While survey content and structure were equivalent across both years of data collection, format and item number varied slightly. In wave 1, the survey consisted of a 15 item

<sup>2</sup>This category was initially termed "Working Sustainably" in the Ones and Dilchert (2009, 2012a) taxonomy, but was renamed to better reflect construct meaning (the behavioral content and subclusters have remained unchanged).

#### TABLE 1 | Descriptions of employee green behavior categories and potential relations with age.


*Definitions adapted from Ones and Dilchert (2012a). For factors potentially influencing age relations,* (+) *indicates that prior research shows the factor is higher among older employee and* (−) *indicates that the factor is higher among younger employees.*

checklist presenting examples of positive environmental work behaviors. For each behavior, respondents indicated whether they had engaged in it on the job in the last 12 months. The 15 items assessed all five subdomains of environmental behavior: Conserving (five items, e.g., "found new uses for discarded or surplus items"), Avoiding Harm (1 item, "disposed of waste properly"), Transforming (five items, e.g., "used innovations to reduce environmental impact"), Influencing Others (two items, e.g., "persuaded others to use environmentally responsible products"), and Taking Initiative (two items, e.g., "behaved in environmentally responsible way even when it was inconvenient"). Originally, several additional items were proposed to assess each of the subdomains. However, due to a variety of organizational constraints, the final survey contained different numbers of items for the five subdomains. Because we were concerned about measurement reliability, we worked with the survey organization to expand the survey to 25 items in wave 2 of the data collection. In this survey, Conserving was measured with six items, Avoiding Harm with four items, Transforming with 10 items, Influencing Others with two items, and Taking Initiative with three items. Additionally, the response format was changed to a 5-point scale measuring the frequency with which employees engaged in the respective behaviors on the job (ranging from "never" to "frequently").

Items for each subdomain of environmental behavior were summed to obtain a measure of environmental performance in that subdomain. Items were also summed across domains to obtain an employee environmental performance composite, which was used as an indicator of overall environmental sustainability at work<sup>3</sup> . The sustainability composite showed good internal consistency reliability across samples; Cronbach's alpha estimates, which were used to correct observed correlations for attenuation (see below), ranged from 0.71 to 0.83 (M = 0.78) for wave 1 samples and from 0.92 to 0.97 (M = 0.96) for wave 2 samples.

Factor analysis was used to explore the congruence of the dimensionality of the sustainability composite across samples. Relationships among the subscales of employee green behaviors were uniformly moderate; the range of correlations across 22 samples was 0.48 to 0.59 (M = 0.54, SD = 0.03). We conducted a factor analysis within each of the 22 samples to examine dimensionality for each of the employee green behavior subscales as well as existence of a latent general factor of employee green behaviors that spans the five subdomains. Such a general factor was found and accounted for an average of 63.6% of the variance in subscale scores across the samples (SD = 2.6%, range = 58.3– 66.4%). Factor loadings of each of the subscales on the general factor were uniformly moderate across samples (M = 0.48, SD = 0.05, range = 0.36–0.59). Thus, although each subscale loads on the general latent construct, there is subdomain-specific variance associated with each.

We also assessed measurement invariance by examining the consistency of the factor analytic results across the 11 countries. To this end, we computed congruence coefficients that indicate the degree of similarity between the factor loadings obtained in each country with those obtained in the U.S. sample. Such congruence coefficients can range from −1.00 (maximum inverse similarity) to +1.00 (maximum similarity; see Chan et al., 1999). Typically, coefficients above 0.90 are interpreted as indicating acceptable congruence (Mulaik, 1971; McCrae et al., 1996; Lorenzo-Seva and ten Berge, 2006). The congruence coefficients obtained for the factorial solutions ranged from 0.9591 to 0.9997 (M = 0.9891, SD = 0.0128), indicating a high degree of similarity between the factor structure of the measure across countries.<sup>4</sup> In sum, these results suggest that meaningful measurement of overall employee green behavior and its subdomains can be comparatively made across samples. We thus proceeded to meta-analytically combine estimates of the age-employee green behavior relationship across the different country samples.

### Analyses

We analyzed age-employee green behavior relations for the 22 samples using psychometric meta-analysis (Schmidt and Hunter, 2014). In primary research, it can be especially useful to meta-analyze effects from different samples that are similar but come from different contexts. In this case, it is preferable to computing a single effect size for the pooled samples, which would ignore differential reliability across samples as well as the influence of different sample mean levels in both variables (see Ostroff and Harrison, 1999; Waller, 2008, for a detailed discussion). There is also growing interest in using meta-analysis to test generalizability of findings specifically from cross-cultural studies, such as the present investigation<sup>5</sup> . Ones et al. (2012) have laid out the theoretical basis for and empirical approaches in using meta-analysis to test for cross-cultural generalizability. Our study, which meta-analyzes 132 independent correlations and 336 d-values from 22 samples in 11 different countries, is an example of what Ones and colleagues' refer to as an "intercontextual approach." Such an approach is well-suited when one seeks to determine if a true effect is consistently present across different settings. To the extent that statistical artifacts (sampling and measurement error) account for a

The U.S. American "Baby Boomer" generation (1946–1965) grew up during a time of widespread affluence and developed a strong sense of individualism (see Strauss and Howe, 1991). At the same time, the Chinese generation growing up during the "Consolidation Era" (roughly 1950–1965) was subjected to Communist Party policy that placed the communal order above individual and family concerns (Egri and Ralston, 2004). The corresponding generation in Russia is described as cynical and as having goals of exploiting the state's system for their own personal advantage (the "Normal Generation"; Mishler and Rose, 2007), while the German "68er Generation" (born roughly between 1945 and 1960) is often identified with its radical quest to leave behind established structures associated with the war generations of their parents. Whereas generational characteristics across cultural contexts are often dissimilar, age is a variable that has equivalence across cultures. Relationships between generational groups and work behaviors often cannot be meaningfully examined in multinational data, providing yet another reason why this manuscript focuses on overall age-effects (see Footnote 1).

<sup>3</sup>We also formed an overall environmental sustainability composite by weighting items by the inverse of their respective base-rates within each country, to account for potential differential item difficulty (i.e., rarity) across behaviors, which might itself vary across countries. Similarly, we also formed a total sustainability composite by averaging across sustainability subdomain scores (this composite correlated 0.99 with the summed composite). Results for both types of alternative composite mirrored those presented in the present analyses, and thus the more straightforward analyses are presented here.

<sup>4</sup>More detailed results of the factor analyses described in this section are available from the first author.

<sup>5</sup>Apropos of the aging vs. generational effects discussed in Footnote 1, it is important to note that examining generational effects using cross-cultural data is extremely difficult. Each country or region is subjected to unique cultural influences that can lead to the formation of unique generations. Generations that emerge during the same time period in different countries are often subjected to different experiences, and thus cannot be regarded as homogeneous generational units. To illustrate how cross-cultural generations might differ at the same point in time, consider the following examples from countries included in our data collection:



*k, number of samples included in the meta-analysis; N, total sample size; mean* <sup>√</sup>*ryy , mean square root of internal consistency reliability estimate (*<sup>√</sup> α*) across samples; r, sample size weighted mean observed correlation with age; SDr, standard deviation of r; SE<sup>r</sup> , sampling error of r; SDres, residual standard deviation;* ρ*, meta-analytic correlation with age, corrected for sampling error, and unreliability in environmental performance measure; SD*ρ*, standard deviation of* ρ*; CI, 90% two-tailed confidence interval; credibility interval, 80% credibility interval. a In sample 1, Avoiding Harm was measured with a single item. The reported reliability estimate was obtained from the 4-item measure in wave 2, and thus resulted in a conservative correction for attenuation. Results for wave 2 (k* = *11) are* ρ = *0.14, SD*<sup>ρ</sup> = *0.00.*

majority of the variability in effects observed across samples, the corrected estimates of a relationship can be said to generalize. Generalizability is indicated by the 80% credibility interval around a corrected true correlation (ρ) or true group difference (δ); its lower bound is the credibility value above which 90% of true effects in the distribution lie. In line with meta-analytic convention, if the credibility interval does not include zero, we conclude that the relationship between age and environmental performance generalizes across samples.

Before analyzing age-employee green behavior data, we investigated the nature of the relationship to detect potential nonlinear effects. To establish adequate power, data were combined within wave (Ns = 2316 and 2360, respectively). In both cases, a linear model fit the data best. Thus, we first computed correlations between age and the environmental performance scales in each of the 22 samples. These effect sizes were metaanalytically pooled (weighted by sample size and corrected for attenuation due to unreliability in the criterion measures<sup>6</sup> ) to arrive at unbiased estimates of true effects and to test for relationships that generalize across samples. The goal of this analytic approach is not only to estimate mean relationships more accurately, but also to investigate whether relationships differ in magnitude across samples once statistical artifacts have been accounted for.

Next, in order to account for potential age differences that might arise due to abrupt maturational shocks (e.g., having children) or meaningful cohort experiences (which themselves could vary across different countries), we also computed and meta-analyzed standardized mean age-group differences in employee green behaviors across countries. For this purpose, we split each of the 22 country samples into four separate age groups. We chose age groups so that they represented relatively homogeneous maturational periods (e.g., early adulthood, career maintenance, late adulthood) while also constituting large enough sample sizes across countries to ensure adequate statistical power. To this end, individuals ranging in age from 36 to 45, 46 to 55, and 56 to 80 years were compared to the 18–35 years-old reference group in each sample. These groups correspond to standard age categories for actuarial and economic research and practice (Frees et al., 2009). We computed Cohen's d-values for each group comparison where individual group Ns were ≥10 and used each sample's total group standard deviation to reference the difference between the means (individual age groups showed no meaningful difference in variability on the employee green behavior composite; the average absolute difference in variability was 9.4%, with no systematic positive or negative pattern along the age gradient). Cohen's d-values on the six criterion scales obtained for the 22 samples were then meta-analyzed (weighted by the inverse of the respective effect's sampling error accounting for unequal group sizes; Schmidt and Hunter, 2014, p. 293), correcting for attenuation due to unreliability using a reliability artifact distribution obtained using each country sample's reliabilities.

### RESULTS

Meta-analytic correlational results for overall employee green behavior and each subdomain are presented in **Table 2**. Metaanalytic results that express these effects in terms of standardized group mean-score differences are presented in **Tables 3**–**8** and illustrated in **Figures 1**–**6**.

### Age and Overall Environmental Performance

Popular stereotypes suggest that younger workers should outperform older workers in environmental performance. However, the corrected meta-analytic correlation between age and the overall employee green behavior composite suggested a weak positive relationship with age (ρ = 0.10). The results for age group mean comparisons suggest that the increase in employee green behaviors among older workers is most apparent between the ages of 36 and 55 (δ = 0.11 for the 36–45 group and 0.24 for the 46–55 group); performance of pro-environmental behaviors was similar for the 46–55 and 56–80 age groups. Age relationships

<sup>6</sup> In wave 1, Avoiding Harm was measured with a single-item, so coefficient alpha could not be computed. To correct these correlations for attenuation due to unreliability, we used the reliability estimates obtained from each country for the longer Avoiding Harm measure used in wave 2. This resulted in undercorrection and conservative estimates of age-Conserving relations. We consider the implications of this undercorrection when discussion the results for Avoiding Harm in Section Avoiding Harm.


*All age groups are compared to the 18–35 years old baseline. k, number of samples included in the meta-analysis; N, total sample size for the respective age group across samples; d, sample size weighted mean observed group difference; SDd, standard deviation of d; SE<sup>d</sup> , sampling error of d; SDres, residual standard deviation;* δ*, sample size weighted mean group difference, corrected for attenuation due to measurement error in the Employee Green Behavior scales; SD*<sup>δ</sup> *, standard deviation of* δ*; CI, 90% two-tailed confidence interval; credibility interval, 80% credibility interval. The mean square root of internal consistency reliability estimate (*<sup>√</sup> α*) across samples was 0.93.*

#### TABLE 4 | Meta-analytic age group mean-score differences (δ) for conserving behaviors.


*All age groups are compared to the 18–35 years old baseline. k, number of samples included in the meta-analysis; N, total sample size for the respective age group across samples; d, sample size weighted mean observed group difference; SDd, standard deviation of d; SE<sup>d</sup> , sampling error of d; SDres, residual standard deviation;* δ*, sample size weighted mean group difference, corrected for attenuation due to measurement error in the Employee Green Behavior scales; SD*<sup>δ</sup> *, standard deviation of* δ*; CI, 90% two-tailed confidence interval; credibility interval, 80% credibility interval. The mean square root of internal consistency reliability estimate (*<sup>√</sup> α*) across samples was 0.84.*

#### TABLE 5 | Meta-analytic age group mean-score differences (δ) for avoiding harm behaviors.


*All age groups are compared to the 18–35 years old baseline. k, number of samples included in the meta-analysis; N, total sample size for the respective age group across samples; d, sample size weighted mean observed group difference; SDd, standard deviation of d; SE<sup>d</sup> , sampling error of d; SDres, residual standard deviation;* δ*, sample size weighted mean group difference, corrected for attenuation due to measurement error in the Employee Green Behavior scales; SD*<sup>δ</sup> *, standard deviation of* δ*; CI, 90% two-tailed confidence interval; credibility interval, 80% credibility interval. The mean square root of internal consistency reliability estimate (*<sup>√</sup> α*) across samples was 0.86. Note that in sample 1, Avoiding Harm was measured with a single item—reliability was corrected using the values for the 4-item measure in wave 2 and thus resulted in a conservative correction for attenuation. Results for wave 2 are* δ = *0.17, 0.30, 0.35 (SD*<sup>δ</sup> = 0.00 *for all analyses).*

#### TABLE 6 | Meta-analytic age group mean-score differences (δ) for transforming behaviors.


*All age groups are compared to the 18–35 years old baseline. k, number of samples included in the meta-analysis; N, total sample size for the respective age group across samples; d, sample size weighted mean observed group difference; SDd, standard deviation of d; SE<sup>d</sup> , sampling error of d; SDres, residual standard deviation;* δ*, sample size weighted mean group difference, corrected for attenuation due to measurement error in the Employee Green Behavior scales; SD*<sup>δ</sup> *, standard deviation of* δ*; CI, 90% two-tailed confidence interval; credibility interval, 80% credibility interval. The mean square root of internal consistency reliability estimate (*<sup>√</sup> α*) across samples was 0.79.*

TABLE 7 | Meta-analytic age group mean-score differences (δ) for influencing others behaviors.


*All age groups are compared to the 18–35 years old baseline. k, number of samples included in the meta-analysis; N, total sample size for the respective age group across samples; d, sample size weighted mean observed group difference; SDd, standard deviation of d; SE<sup>d</sup> , sampling error of d; SDres, residual standard deviation;* δ*, sample size weighted mean group difference, corrected for attenuation due to measurement error in the Employee Green Behavior scales; SD*<sup>δ</sup> *, standard deviation of* δ*; CI, 90% two-tailed confidence interval; credibility interval, 80% credibility interval. The mean square root of internal consistency reliability estimate (*<sup>√</sup> α*) across samples was 0.74.*


*All age groups are compared to the 18–35 years old baseline. k, number of samples included in the meta-analysis; N, total sample size for the respective age group across samples; d, sample size weighted mean observed group difference; SDd, standard deviation of d; SE<sup>d</sup> , sampling error of d; SDres, residual standard deviation;* δ*, sample size weighted mean group difference, corrected for attenuation due to measurement error in the Employee Green Behavior scales; SD*<sup>δ</sup> *, standard deviation of* δ*; CI, 90% two-tailed confidence interval; credibility interval, 80% credibility interval. The mean square root of internal consistency reliability estimate* ( √ α) *across samples was 0.71.*

with overall green behaviors were somewhat variable across samples, though remained consistently small.

## Age and Subdomains of Environmental Performance

### Conserving

By far the most commonly observed subdomain of employee green behaviors is Conserving (Ones and Dilchert, 2012a); its functional core relates to frugality and thrift. For this domain, the corrected meta-analytic correlation was ρ = 0.12 with small variability (SD<sup>ρ</sup> = 0.06), indicating that older individuals generally exhibited these behaviors at a higher rate. There was a uniformly positive relationship between age and Conserving behaviors across samples, even though the magnitude of the relationship varied to some degree. The credibility interval around the estimate of ρ did not include zero (0.04, 0.21), indicating that once variation due to sampling error and unreliability was accounted for, the relationship generalizes. Consistent with the results for overall employee green behaviors, age group mean differences in Conserving were most apparent for the 36–45 (δ = 0.23) and 46–55 (δ = 0.34) age groups.

### Avoiding Harm

Conceptually, Avoiding Harm behaviors are similar in nature to avoiding counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., avoiding pollution), as well as to task-based organizational citizenship behaviors and safety performance (e.g., disposing of hazardous waste properly), dimensions of job performance on which older workers slightly outperform younger workers. Thus, we might expect that if any domain of employees' environmental performance were to show age differences, it would be Avoiding Harm. Results showed some support for this expectation. The meta-analytic correlation between age and Avoiding Harm was small and positive (ρ = 0.12; SD<sup>ρ</sup> = 0.06) and generalizable (lower 80% credibility value = 0.05). Results for the group mean difference meta-analyses showed consistent small increases in Avoiding Harm behaviors across all age groups (δ = 0.16, 0.27, and 0.38 for each successive age group).

Note that in the first year of data collection, this aspect of employee green behaviors could only be measured with a single item, so it was not possible to estimate internal consistency reliability. In applying corrections for attenuation due to measurement error in the environmental sustainability measure, only the (much higher) reliability estimates from the second year of data collection (4-item scale) could be used, resulting in underestimates of the true effect in year 1. Considering only the results from the second year of data collection, the metaanalytic correlation is ρ = 0.14 (SD<sup>ρ</sup> = 0.00) and the group mean differences are δ = 0.17, 0.30, and 0.35 for the 36–45, 45–55, and 56–80 age groups, respectively (SD<sup>δ</sup> = 0.00 for all analyses).

### Transforming

Observed correlations with age varied widely across samples for Transforming (range = −0.21 to 0.26). Most correlations were positive, but negative correlations were observed for some samples (Japan sample 1, Russian Federation sample 1, and United States sample 2, rcorrected = −0.11, −0.16, and −0.21, respectively). Because of this variability in direction and magnitude across samples, the meta-analytic estimate of the mean effect was very small with comparatively large unexplained variance (ρ = 0.05, SD<sup>ρ</sup> = 0.08). The credibility interval included zero (−0.04, 0.15). Thus, the relation between Transforming and

age appears to somewhat variable across settings, ranging from negligible to weakly positive.

An examination of the group mean score differences (see **Table 6** and **Figure 4**) reveals a potential explanation for the negligible relationship between this employee green behavior domain and age. While older workers in the age groups of 36–45 (δ = 0.05) and 46–55 (δ = 0.14) on average scored increasingly higher to a small degree, individuals in the oldest age group showed a decrease back toward the level of the young reference group of 18–35 years-olds (δ = 0.06). This non-linear pattern in age group mean score differences might be founded in the types of behaviors included in this sustainability subdomain, many of which relate to the use of innovative technology. Adapting to new technologies is one dimension of job performance that does show substantial negative relations with employee age (Ng and Feldman, 2008). It appears that Transforming is one category of employee green behavior where significantly older employees (i.e., employees older than 55, which represent a small proportion of employees in most workforces) do show performance declines. However, despite these declines, even the oldest employees perform more of these behaviors than do younger individuals.

#### Influencing Others

In terms of individual country correlations, the relationship between age and Influencing Others was the most variable across countries (rcorrected range = −0.15 to 0.63). Once sampling error was accounted for, the meta-analytic estimate of the mean effect was weakly positive (ρ = 0.12) and considerably less variable across settings (SD<sup>ρ</sup> = 0.10). The 80% credibility interval ranged from a negligible relationship to a moderate positive relationship (−0.01, 0.25). Thus, we can conclude that while the relationship is variable, in most settings, age and Influencing Others are weakly to moderately positively related. Results for the age group mean differences suggest that this relationship results from an abrupt increase in Influencing Others behaviors

around δ.

between the 35–45 (δ = 0.04) and 46–55 (δ = 0.27) age groups. This is consistent with the nature of the behaviors in this domain. As employees enter middle age, they are more likely to move into higher level managerial and leadership positions that afford them the opportunity to encourage and motivate other employees, implement training programs, and provide support for environmental performance of others.

#### Taking Initiative

Of all the age-employee environmental performance relationships investigated in this study, the findings for Taking Initiative were the smallest across samples (range = −0.12 to 0.15). The small magnitude of the meta-analytic correlation (ρ = 0.05, SD<sup>ρ</sup> = 0.07) and the wide credibility interval (−0.04, 0.14) indicate that age was not systematically related to

Taking Initiative behaviors across samples. Results were similar for the group mean comparisons; each successively older age group showed only a very small increase in Taking Initiative behaviors (δ = 0.04, 0.10, and 0.17).

### DISCUSSION

The present research expanded on previous work on age differences in job performance by investigating the relationship between age and the emerging criterion domain of employee green behaviors. Parallel to other performance domains, popular stereotypes suggest that older workers might lag behind in environmentally relevant job behaviors. We examined age relationships both for overall environmental performance as well as for conceptually and empirically distinct subdomains of employee green behaviors. We conducted an intercontexual meta-analysis of 22 samples from 11 countries (total N = 4676).

We found that, contrary to popular stereotypes, age showed generally small positive relationships with environmental performance. For some subdomains of environmental performance, and for several age group comparisons, these positive relationships were found to generalize across countries and samples. Older employees appeared to be slightly more likely to engage in conserving behaviors, to expend more effort to avoid environmental harm in the workplace, and to encourage and promote environmental sustainability among other employees. Ones et al. (2012) suggested that intercontextual research designs, such as the one employed in the present study, are useful for examining the crosscultural generalizability of relations between variables, as such analyses can determine whether observed differences across countries are attributable to statistical artifacts. The narrow width of most credibility intervals and the cultural diversity of the countries sampled suggests that culture is not likely to be a major moderator of age-employee green behavior relations.

The results of our meta-analyses of workplace environmental behavior parallel results found in Wiernik et al.'s (2013) metaanalysis of age differences in environmental sustainability in non-work settings. Wiernik et al. found that age relations with pro-environmental behaviors were small in magnitude and favored older individuals. The present study establishes that relations are similar in direction and magnitude in work contexts. The consistency in results across work and non-work settings indicates that differences between these contexts (e.g., varying levels of autonomy, power, and observability, differing social roles) do not have a moderating impact on age-employee green behavior relations. While these situational factors may exhibit main effects on environmental behavior and moderate the effects of other variables (e.g., the power of social norms to change behavior; Ones and Dilchert, 2012b), individual age remains consistently modestly related to green behavior across settings.

The findings of our meta-analyses within this new performance domain also parallel those of Ng and Feldman (2008), who examined age relationships for major dimensions of job performance, such as core technical performance, creativity, training performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and counterproductive work behaviors. For the most part, Ng and Feldman also reported small correlations that slightly favored older employees, dispelling commonly held stereotypes that older employees exhibit lower performance compared with their younger counterparts. The same appears to be true for the employee environmental performance domain. Despite commonly held notions about older employees' slow adoption of environmental sustainability efforts, we found no appreciable age differences.

The modest relations observed between age and employee green behaviors should not be interpreted as evidence that the age-related socio-psychological factors discussed in the introduction and in **Table 1** are unrelated to employee green behaviors. Rather, the results merely indicate that age is a poor proxy for these variables when studying environmental sustainability. Indeed, several of these variables have been shown to have important impacts on employee green behaviors (e.g., personality traits, Kim et al., 2014; environmental attitudes, Scherbaum et al., 2008). Researchers who are interested in examining the impact of environmental attitudes, personality traits, work values, organizational power, or other factors on employee green behaviors, should measure these focal variables directly, rather than relying on deficient proxy variables such as employee age.

As organizations move toward greater environmental responsibility (see Schmit et al., 2012), employee contributions to organizations' environmental sustainability efforts will be increasingly important. Age stereotypes may lead human resources managers to worry that older employees will hinder their organizations' attainment of environmental sustainability goals. However, the results of this study suggest that these fears are mostly unsubstantiated. Older individuals actually perform some pro-environmental behaviors at work (Conserving, Avoiding Harm, and Influencing Others) at higher rates than younger individuals. It should be noted, however, that while positive trends between age and environmental behaviors were observed, these age differences were small in magnitude. As a result, employee age is likely to have a minor impact on organizational environmental sustainability. These results have implications for interventions to address organizational environmental goals. Human resources practitioners might be concerned that incorporating environmental performance criteria into performance management systems might unfairly disadvantage older workers, but this does not appear to be the case. Perhaps more importantly, organizations seeking to improve their environmental performance should not be concerned that older workers will impair their efforts. Given that age differences in environmental performance are small in magnitude, and actually run counter to commonly held assumptions, preferring younger individuals in employee selection or other staffing decisions would be both unfair and counterproductive with regard to achieving environmental goals. Designing effective human resources interventions will be key to improving employee environmental performance in organizations, and only relevant employee characteristics should be considered in their design.

### Directions for Future Research

We view the present research as a major step toward understanding age differences in employee environmental performance. We used a comprehensive meta-analytic approach to assess employee green behaviors using multiple samples from several countries. Future research should expand upon our methods and results to improve our understanding of environmental sustainability at work, the aging process in the workplace, and their relationship to one another.

One avenue for future research will be the inclusion of additional countries to further our understanding of the impact employees are able to have on organizational environmental sustainability. Even though the 11 countries sampled in our study represented six different cultural regions, including additional countries and contexts (particularly less industrialized world regions) will enable stronger tests of the cross-cultural generalizability of our findings of negligible age-environmental performance relationships. More and larger samples are also needed to confirm the non-linear relationships between age and Transforming and Influencing Others behaviors. We encourage replications of this research, both in additional countries as well in those already investigated (cf. Carpenter, 2012).

For some subdomains of sustainability (Transforming, Influencing Others, and Taking Initiative), there was a substantial amount of residual variation in age group differences after accounting for sampling error and unreliability (e.g., SD<sup>δ</sup> = 0.23 for Transforming for the 46–55 to 18–35 age group comparison). In post hoc analyses, we examined several possible substantive moderators of these group differences, such as cultural characteristics, sample mean age, and base rates of employee green behaviors. None of these moderators showed substantial relations with observed group differences. Indeed, the variation appeared to be due to a small number of extreme outlier values; removing the most extreme value from either end of the distribution reduced the residual variation to negligible amounts for each of these behavioral domains. These extreme values were generally present in only one of the two samples from those countries (e.g., d46–<sup>55</sup> = 0.71 for Influencing Others for Mexico sample 1, but 0.05 for Mexico sample 2). As a result, we conclude that these estimates of SD<sup>δ</sup> for the selected sustainability subdomains are due to second order sampling error (Schmidt and Hunter, 2014, Chapter 9), rather than systematic moderators such as cultural differences or demographic sample composition. This conclusion is bolstered by the observation of comparatively less residual variation for the meta-analyses of correlations (where the respective effects are based on larger sample sizes). Future studies of age-employee green behavior relationships in additional countries will help to clarify whether this observed variability is indeed artifactual.

Second, like most studies that examine age in work settings (e.g., Ng and Feldman, 2008, 2012), our study used a crosssectional design. While such studies are useful in guiding organizational decision making and theorizing about the antecedents of important workplace behaviors and outcomes, there have been increasing calls for longitudinal research in applied psychology to better understand how workplace processes and individual workplace behaviors unfold and change over the course of individuals' lives (Baltes et al., 2012). As such work develops and increases in popularity, researchers should include environmental performance criteria among the behavioral domains studied. Longitudinal research on relationships between age and environmental performance will be able to disentangle aging and maturation from generational cohort effects (see Footnote 1). Even though the distinction between aging and generational effects is of little consequence for today's organizations (i.e., environmental sustainability needs to be addressed in a given workforce at one point in time, and the practical need for interventions is the same regardless of the source of observed age differences), a better understanding of age and developmental effects will be critical for long-term organizational planning, as well as for making environmental policy decisions from a societal perspective. Of course, given the unique generational groups that exist in many cultures, such longitudinal research will have to be conducted within specific cultural settings, which will complicate investigations of the generalizability of results.

Our study is characterized by several major strengths. We examined correlations of age with overall employee green behaviors as well as its subdomains. We also used age group mean score comparisons to detect effects that might have been masked in a strict correlational design. The use of meta-analysis with our multi-country primary samples helped us reach conclusions regarding generalizable effects by correcting for the biasing influence of sampling and measurement error. Direct replications using such large numbers of samples in different cultural contexts are extraordinarily scarce in organizational behavior research (see Spector et al., 2001; Albrecht et al., 2014, for two rare exceptions). In sum, the present study not only provides the first investigation of age differences in this important new performance domain, but does so at a scale that is typically only matched in quantitative summaries spanning several decades of published research.

### REFERENCES


In sum, despite rampant stereotypes downplaying the willingness and ability of older employees to positively contribute to environmental sustainability, the reality appears to be that such stark age differences in environmental performance do not exist. As industrial, work, and organizational psychologists help design effective strategies and interventions for increasing green behaviors at work, they can do so without being concerned about their differential impact on employees of different ages. By basing practice on empirical reality, rather than on unfounded preconceptions, we can ensure that our efforts succeed in furthering the environmental sustainability of organizations.

### ETHICS STATEMENT

The research presented in this manuscript has been determined as exempt from Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) and Institutional Review Board (IRB) review at the City University of New York, because it did not involve human subjects as defined by CUNY HRPP policy. The retrospective data analysis did not contain privately identifiable information.

### AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors listed, have made substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through a Graduate Research Fellowship awarded to BW.

### SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg. 2016.00194


relate to well-being: an ecological level international study. J. Organ. Behav. 22, 815–832. doi: 10.1002/job.118


**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The reviewer DJ and handling Editor declared their recent collaboration, and the handling Editor states that the process nevertheless met the standards of a fair and objective review. The reviewer CW and handling Editor declared their recent collaboration, and the handling Editor states that the process nevertheless met the standards of a fair and objective review.

Copyright © 2016 Wiernik, Dilchert and Ones. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.