- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
Interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) has grown beyond traditional macro-level research to also consider employee-level outcomes of CSR. This nascent stream has focused on the relationship between organizational CSR initiatives and employee outcomes within the organization. Distinguishing between substantive and symbolic CSR (i.e. genuine CSR vs. greenwashing), we argue that to understand employee outcomes requires identifying their underlying attributions of their organizations’ CSR initiatives and the process by which these differential attributions are formed. Integrating theorizing and findings from the organizational behavior, marketing, and strategy literature, we propose a model of employee attribution formation of organizational CSR initiatives as substantive versus symbolic to differentiate the positive outcomes to organizations when causally evaluated as engaging in substantive CSR, from the null or possibly negative employee outcomes when these initiatives are attributed as symbolic. Implications for practice and applications to management are also discussed.
This paper proposes a theoretical model explaining the mechanism underlying employees' attributions of their organizations' CSR initiatives as substantive or symbolic, and in turn describes the differential impact of these attributions on ensuing employee attitudes and behaviors. We underscore that while engaging in any CSR initiative of benefit to a stakeholder is always better than doing nothing at all at a societal level, the danger of the negative attitudes and behaviors that may follow when employees causally evaluate their organization as doing so self-servingly provides an additional and often unconsidered motivation for organizations to focus on CSR that will be attributed by employees as substantive. We argue that considering employees' attributions adds an important caveat to the economists’ position that “greater overall social output will be achieved by the strategic approach, than by the altruistic approach” (Husted & de Jesus Salazar, 2006, p. 75) and that ““responsible” leadership that encourages the non-instrumental use of CSR … is not really responsible” (Waldman & Siegel, 2008, p. 119). Specifically, and in light of growing public skepticism (Chun & Giebelhausen, 2012; Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013) related to greenwashing, organizations have more to gain from engaging in CSR substantively, both for the related internal (via substantive attributions) and external (not being viewed as engaging in greenwashing) gains that follow. We remind managers of the importance for an employee CSR communications strategy to provide adequate background and explanation for the organization's choice of initiatives as key to increasing awareness to enable employees to form attributions of substantive CSR. Furthermore, embedding the three C's of substantive CSR (i.e. coherence, consistency and commitment) to organizational CSR strategies may yield additional employee contributions to further reinforce the business case for such CSR initiatives.