6. Conclusion
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.