Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Reaching the Hard to Reach: CSR and Employee Engagement in Hospitality and
Tourism
by
Kelsy Hejjas
Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Supervisors: Caroline Scarles and Graham Miller
©Kelsy Hejjas 2017
Declaration of OriginalityThis thesis and the work to which it refers are the results of my own efforts. Any ideas, data,
images or text resulting from the work of others (whether published or unpublished) are fully
identified as such within the work and attributed to their originator in the text, bibliography or
in footnotes. This thesis has not been submitted in whole or in part for any other academic
degree or professional qualification. I agree that the University has the right to submit my work
to the plagiarism detection service TurnitinUK for originality checks. Whether or not drafts have
been so-assessed, the University reserves the right to require an electronic version of the final
document (as submitted) for assessment as above.
Signature: ________________________________________________________________
Date: ______________________________________________________________________
i
AbstractThe concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and employee engagement are growing in
importance, both in academia and in practise. Research suggests that there is a strong
correlation between the two with CSR linked to organisational advantages, including
recruitment, retention, productivity, and morale, which relate specifically to employees.
Furthermore, with employee engagement a well-established antecedent to obtaining objectives,
employees are an integral stakeholder group in CSR adoption and dissemination. However,
despite specific benefits of CSR relating to employees and their importance as stakeholders, it is
noteworthy that a lack of attention has been paid to the individual level of analysis with CSR
primarily being studied at the organisational level. Within research and practise of CSR, the
organisation is often treated as a ‘black box’, failing to account for individual differences and the
resulting variations in antecedents to CSR engagement or disengagement. This is a theoretical
challenge shared by stakeholder theory, which often suggests internal homogeneity within
stakeholder groups despite diversity of objectives and stakes in the organisation.
The primary objective of the study is to determine why employees engage and disengage from
CSR interventions within the context of multinational hospitality and tourism organisations. In
order to fully examine the subjective experience of employees engaging in organisational CSR, a
qualitative methodology is employed. Data was drawn from three multinational tourism and
hospitality case study organisations and involved extensive interview data collected from CSR
leaders, engaged and disengaged employees, and industry professionals. This exploratory
research subsequently contributes to the understanding of employee engagement in CSR by
identifying opportunities and barriers for individual employee engagement in corporate
responsibility policy and initiatives.
This research also contributes to emerging evidence within the literature that suggests
disengagement is not the counterpart of engagement. Having studied individual differences in
CSR engagement, findings suggests that the engagement and disengagement are not opposites
and unique antecedents to both engagement and disengagement are identified as arising at the
personal, activity, and organisational level. A multilevel analysis subsequently contributes to the
advancement of employee CSR engagement understanding.
Critically, it is proposed that employees are situated along a spectrum of engagement from
actively engaged to actively disengaged, with a key contribution of this research being a model
that addresses variation in individual engagement and disengagement. Recognising that
employees accept, interpret and operationalise corporate responsibility differently, this study
ii
draws on social identity theory to account for individual differences amongst employees. While
there are some common drivers of engagement across the entire spectrum of employees,
differences also exist depending on the degree to which employees support CSR within their
organisations. Key antecedents to CSR engagement that vary depending on employees’ existing
level of broader engagement include: observed benefits of participation, CSR intervention
design, organisational culture, employee CSR perceptions, and CSR leadership. Employee CSR
engagement is also identified as being driven by the type of CSR intervention, communication,
individual values, and person-organisation fit.
iii
AcknowledgementsIt is incredibly exciting to be writing the acknowledgments of this thesis. First of all because it
means that I’m finished (!) and secondly because there are so many people that I want to thank
for their generous help in getting me through this roller coaster ride of a PhD!
To my supervisors, Dr. Caroline Scarles and Professor Graham Miller, I couldn’t have asked for a
better support network. Thank you for mentoring me, pushing me, and believing in me even
when I struggled to believe in myself. Your input and enthusiasm helped to shape my interests
as an academic and I am so grateful for the direction you provided in helping me to find a topic
about which I am truly passionate!
A huge thank you to all three of the partner organisations and all interviewees for participating
in this research. Your honesty and candour provided great insight for my thesis. I could not have
done it without you!
Mom, Dad, Hayley and Shelby – four years is a long time to be away from the people that you
love. So, thank you so much for supporting me, listening to me, and sending me so many updates
I hardly felt like I’d left! I know that no matter where life takes me, you guys always have my
back. They say you don’t get to choose your family but if you did, I would choose you guys 100%
of the time!
A PhD can be a long and lonely process and I consider myself incredibly lucky to have had so
many amazing friends to keep me company along the way. You encouraged me to step away
from my work and enjoy life – thank you for all the laughs and adventures! You guys are the
best
iv
Table of ContentsDeclaration of Originality........................................................................................................................ i
Abstract................................................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................. iv
Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................1
List of Tables........................................................................................................................................10
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................................11
Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................12
Chapter 1: Introduction.......................................................................................................................13
1.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................13
1.2. Research Rational..................................................................................................................16
1.3. Research Question................................................................................................................19
1.4. Research Objectives..............................................................................................................19
1.5. Significance of Research........................................................................................................19
1.6. Thesis Structure.....................................................................................................................21
Chapter 2: Corporate Social Responsibility..........................................................................................21
2.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................21
2.2. Defining Corporate Social Responsibility...............................................................................21
2.3. Theories of Corporate Social Responsibility..........................................................................21
2.3.1. Economic Theory............................................................................................................21
2.3.2. Political Theory...............................................................................................................21
2.3.3. Integrative Theory..........................................................................................................21
2.3.4. Ethical Theory.................................................................................................................21
2.4. Stakeholder Theory and CSR.................................................................................................21
2.4.1. Employees as a Key Stakeholder Group.........................................................................21
2.4.2. Homogenising Stakeholder Interests..............................................................................21
2.5. CSR Taxonomy.......................................................................................................................21
2.6. The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility..........................................................21
2.7. Opportunities and Barriers for CSR.......................................................................................21
2.8. CSR in Tourism and Hospitality..............................................................................................21
2.8.1. CSR in the Tour Operator Industry.................................................................................21
2.8.2. CSR in the Hospitality Industry.......................................................................................21
2.9. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................21
1
Chapter 3: CSR and the Business Organisation....................................................................................21
3.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................21
3.2. Social Identity Theory............................................................................................................21
3.2.1. Multiplicity of Identities.................................................................................................21
3.3. CSR in Multinational Corporations........................................................................................21
3.3.1. Cross Cultural Differences and CSR.................................................................................21
3.4. Organisational Culture...........................................................................................................21
3.4.1. Organisational Subcultures.............................................................................................21
3.5. Type of CSR Intervention.......................................................................................................21
3.5.1. Employee Fundraising....................................................................................................21
3.5.2. Employee Volunteering..................................................................................................21
3.6. CSR Leadership......................................................................................................................21
3.6.1. Forms of Leadership.......................................................................................................21
3.6.2. Human Resource Management......................................................................................21
3.7. Psychological Mechanisms Underlying the Effect of CSR on Individuals...............................21
3.7.1. Organisational Identification Theory..............................................................................21
3.7.2. Signalling Theory............................................................................................................21
3.7.3. Social Exchange Theory..................................................................................................21
3.8. Micro-CSR..............................................................................................................................21
3.8.1. A Person-Centric Perspective of CSR..............................................................................21
3.8.2. Employee CSR Perceptions.............................................................................................21
3.8.3. Employee Participation in CSR........................................................................................21
3.8.4. Employee Expectations and Attitudes towards CSR.......................................................21
3.8.5. Employee Empowerment...............................................................................................21
3.9. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................21
Chapter 4: Employee Engagement......................................................................................................21
4.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................21
4.2. Employee Engagement..........................................................................................................21
4.2. Employee Disengagement.....................................................................................................21
4.3. Employee Engagement and CSR............................................................................................21
4.4. Antecedents to Engagement.................................................................................................21
4.5. Communication for CSR.........................................................................................................21
4.6. Designing Engagement Interventions....................................................................................21
4.7. Evaluation Taxonomies for Engagement Interventions.........................................................21
2
4.7.1. The COR Theory and the JD-R Model..............................................................................21
4.8. Conceptualisation of Employee Engagement and Disengagement.......................................21
4.9. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................21
Chapter 5: Methodology.....................................................................................................................21
5.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................21
5.2. Research Aims and Objectives...............................................................................................21
5.3. Research Philosophy.............................................................................................................21
5.3.1. Reflexivity.......................................................................................................................21
5.4. Research Approach...............................................................................................................21
5.5. Research Strategy..................................................................................................................21
5.5.1. Case study Rational........................................................................................................21
5.5.2. Semi-Structured Interviews............................................................................................21
5.6. Organisational Context..........................................................................................................21
5.7. Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................21
5.8. Research Ethics and Access...................................................................................................21
5.8.1. Access.............................................................................................................................21
5.8.2. Sensitive Information.....................................................................................................21
5.9. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................21
Chapter 6: The Spectrum of CSR Engagement.....................................................................................21
6.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................21
6.2. The Spectrum of Engagement...............................................................................................21
6.3. Type of CSR Intervention.......................................................................................................21
6.3.1. Corporate Volunteering..................................................................................................21
6.3.2. Corporate Fundraising....................................................................................................21
6.4. Communication, Awareness, and Understanding.................................................................21
6.4.1. Communication for Corporate Initiatives.......................................................................21
6.4.2. Communication for Individual Engagement...................................................................21
6.4.3. Greater Clarity in CSR Communication...........................................................................21
6.5. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................21
Chapter 7: The Role of Leadership and Culture in CSR Engagement...................................................21
7.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................21
7.2. Attributes of Effective CSR Leadership..................................................................................21
7.2.1. Genuineness...................................................................................................................21
7.2.2. Passion...........................................................................................................................21
3
7.3. Types of Leaders....................................................................................................................21
7.3.1. C-Suite and Board Level Leadership...............................................................................21
7.3.2. Middle Management......................................................................................................21
7.3.3. CSR Team........................................................................................................................21
7.3.4. CSR Champions...............................................................................................................21
7.4. Organisational Culture...........................................................................................................21
7.4.1. Organisational Sub-Cultures and CSR.............................................................................21
7.5. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................21
Chapter 8: Barriers and Facilitators of Employee CSR Engagement.....................................................21
8.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................21
8.2. Employee Attributions of Organisational CSR........................................................................21
8.3. Perceived Benefits of Participation.......................................................................................21
8.3.1. Professional Development.............................................................................................21
8.3.2. Social Development........................................................................................................21
8.4. Intervention Design...............................................................................................................21
8.4.1. Reward and Incentives...................................................................................................21
8.4.2. Interest and Relevance of Intervention..........................................................................21
8.4.3. Autonomy and Choice....................................................................................................21
8.4.4. Ease and Practicality of Participation.............................................................................21
8.5. Intervention Fit......................................................................................................................21
8.6. The Effect of CSR on Employees............................................................................................21
8.6.1. View of the Organisation................................................................................................21
8.6.2. Organisational Pride.......................................................................................................21
8.7. Disengaged Employees..........................................................................................................21
8.7.1. Organisational CSR Policy and Practice...........................................................................21
8.7.2. Work-life Balance...........................................................................................................21
8.7.3. Employee Discretion.......................................................................................................21
8.7.4. Pressure..........................................................................................................................21
8.8. Space for the Disengaged......................................................................................................21
8.9. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................21
Chapter 9: Conclusions........................................................................................................................21
9.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................21
9.2. Answers to the Research Question and Objectives...............................................................21
9.3. Significance and Originality of the Research.........................................................................21
4
9.3.1. Employee CSR Engagement Research and Theory.........................................................21
9.4. Conclusions and Directions for Future Research...................................................................21
References...........................................................................................................................................21
Appendices..........................................................................................................................................21
Appendix A: Interview Themes for Engaged Employees..................................................................21
Appendix B: Sample Transcript........................................................................................................21
Appendix C: Information and Consent Letter..................................................................................21
Appendix D: Ethical Consent Form..................................................................................................21
5
List of TablesTable 4.1. Levels of Employee Engagement
Table 5.1. Methodological Map
Table 5.2. Data Collection Reference Guide
6
List of FiguresFigure 4.1. Determinants for the Incubation of Employee Disengagement through the Lack of Psychological Identification and Meaningfulness
Figure 4.2. Conceptual Framework for Engagement and Disengagement
Figure 6.1. Model for the Spectrum of Engagement
Figure 6.2. Communication as a Driver for Disengagement
Figure 7.1. Organisational Level Factors Influencing Employee Engagement and Disengagement
Figure 8.1. Antecedents to Employee CSR Engagement and Disengagement
Figure 8.2. Unique Antecedents to Engagement for Disengaged Employees
Figure 9.1. Revised Conceptual Framework for Engagement and Disengagement
7
AbbreviationsBRR: Business Responsibility and Reputation
CC: Corporate Citizenship
CF: Corporate Fundraising
CREW: Civility Respect and Engagement at Work
CS: Corporate Sustainability
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility
CV: Corporate volunteering
GRI: Global Reporting Initiative
HR: Human Resources
HRM: Human Resource Management
H&T: Hospitality and Tourism
I-O: Industrial/Organisational Psychology
KPO: Key Performance Indicator
OCB: Organisational Commitment Behaviour
SIT: Social Identity Theory
SVT: Shareholder Value Theory
TBL: Triple Bottom Line
UNWTO: World Tourism Organisation
8
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. IntroductionIt is widely acknowledged that value creation extends beyond financial outcomes to encompass
ecological, human and societal performance (Elkington, 1999; Whittenberg, et al., 2007). Thus it
is unsurprising that there is increasingly an expectation for companies to behave in a socially
responsible manner (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Orlitzky, et al., 2011; Vogel, 2005) with the
creation of shareholder wealth, once considered the ultimate corporate objective, gradually
being replaced by a broader conception of organisational success (Robson, 2002; Jamali, 2006).
For many, the meaning of organisational success has been expanded to the triple bottom line
(TBL) where companies are held accountable for their social, environmental, and economic
impacts (García de Leaniz, et al., 2012; Afrin, 2013). Traction gained in the transition towards
greater corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be attributed to the privatisation and
deregulation of markets during the 1980s, as well as several large corporate scandals including
those of Nestle, Union Carbide, World Com and Enron (Whitehouse, 2006; Carroll, 2015). In
addition, increasingly informed consumers have raised expectations regarding company
behaviour towards stakeholders (Garavan & McGuire, 2010) with corporate social
responsibility subsequently growing in importance (Ferreira & Real de Oliveira, 2014).
However, despite its popularity, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the concept. In
particular, given the broad meaning of the word ‘social’, both the term and the concept of
corporate social responsibility remain vague, meaning different things to different people
(Clarkson, 1995). As a result, both the history of CSR and its modern day interpretation and
implementation are characterised by a plurality of interpretations that have arguably affected
its academic development and efficiency in business practise (Dahlsrud, 2008).
Despite confusion surrounding the concept of CSR, its popularity in business practise and
amongst academics continues to grow (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). However, there remains a gap
between perceptions of CSR and actual accomplishments in the area (Sheldon & Park, 2010).
For businesses, this is a result of a variety of barriers including: environmental challenges,
infrastructure, and a lack of cooperation and support (Kasim, 2007). In addition, both research
and practise of CSR has largely treated the individual organisation as a ‘black box’ (Howard-
Grenville, 2006), failing to account for intra-organisational differences in responding to
sustainability issues. Yet, individuals within an organisation accept, interpret and operationalise
the term differently (Faber, et al., 2005). As a result, organisational leaders, management, and
change agents are frequently faced with internal barriers and resistance in their attempts to
implement pro-sustainable behaviour change (Dunphy, et al., 2003). This is exacerbated by the
9
tendency to treat employees as a homogenous stakeholder group (Greenwood, 2008), failing to
recognise the diversity of expectations, objectives, and stakes employees have in the
organisation (Winn, 2001).
Carrying the main burden of responsibility for implementing CSR within the workplace (Collier
& Esteban, 2007), employees are key players in pro-sustainable behaviour change (Jenkins,
2006; Davies & Crane, 2010). Therefore understanding the differences in CSR engagement
amongst employees is paramount. As the expectations and duties of businesses evolve, so too do
the role and responsibilities of employees. Though CSR refers to policies and actions by
organisations, these activities are influenced and implemented by a range of actors throughout
the organisation (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). As a result, the success of these initiatives is largely
dependent on employee engagement, support and willingness to collaborate (Collier and
Esteban, 2007). However, often employees are unaware of or do not care about sustainability
issues, with CSR practises disconnected from job responsibilities (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
While there is increasing pressure on organisations to implement CSR initiatives, many
organisations are not equipped with the knowledge and understanding of how to effectively
engage employees in CSR (Wells, 2013). This issue can be further exacerbated in multinational
organisations where the sustainability message must be communicated across a wide range of
departments and positions, as well as borders and cultures (Barnett & Lee, 2012; Bondy &
Starkey, 2014). In response, this thesis employs both stakeholder theory and social identity
theory in order to present a finer grained conceptualisation of employees as a stakeholder
group, contributing to the understanding of the unique opportunities and barriers faced by
employees in engaging in corporate social responsibility.
Though an important stakeholder group, a lack of attention has been paid to the individual level
of analysis with CSR largely studied from the organisational rather than individual perspective
(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). If employees are studied, it is often the views and voices of
sustainability managers or top management which are discussed (Helin & Sandström, 2008).
However, these individuals represent a minority of those targeted by codes of ethics (ibid) as it
is employees who are responsible for enacting sustainable behaviour in the daily working life of
the organisation. Consequently, the relationship between CSR and employee engagement offers
a valuable opportunity to address human resource management (HRM) issues in an industry
stigmatised for having low paying jobs and poor working conditions (Tesone & Ricci, 2005). The
structure of the tourism industry also makes it conducive to labour turnover rates higher than
that of other sectors within the economy (Baum, 2007). Further, in addition to improved
retention rates, CSR has been linked with numerous other organisational advantages including
improved recruitment (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006); employee performance (Larson, et al.,
10
2008); commitment (Brammer, et al., 2007; Rupp, et al., 2006); and employee-company
identification and fit (Berger, et al., 2006; Collier & Esteban, 2007; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008).
While organisations struggle with the practical implementation of sustainability interventions,
shortcomings within the literature are also evident. The CSR literature remains highly
fragmented (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012), with academic thinking progressing in certain areas but
still failing to address a number of knowledge gaps. These gaps include a lack of research on
employee involvement in CSR (Brammer, et al., 2007; Liu, et al., 2010; Powell, 2011); the
alignment of selection, appraisal, reward and training processes with CSR (Morgeson, et al.,
2013); and the differences amongst employees in relation to CSR understanding and
engagement (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). As Waddock (2004) proposes, it is as if academia and
business operate in two parallel universes with vast differences arising between corporate
social responsibility theory and mainstream management practises.
Despite its importance, thus far CSR research in hospitality and tourism (H&T) has been the
predominant focus of a comparatively limited academic body of work. This is particularly true
for the tour operator industry (van de Mosselaer, et al., 2012), as evidenced by Coles et al.
(2013) who found fewer than ten pieces of recent academic research on CSR in the tour
operator industry. However, as intermediaries between tourism suppliers and customers, tour
operators are in a unique position in regards to pro-sustainable behaviour change (Budeanu,
2005) with research in this area consequently providing an exceptional opportunity to advance
the sustainability agenda. Nevertheless, for many operators there remains a gap between
perceptions of CSR and actual accomplishments in the area (Sheldon & Park, 2010). Ashworth
and Goodall (1990) suggest that the lack of responsibility adopted by tour operators may be a
function of the lack of ownership over resources. Industry barriers including environmental
challenges, lack of cooperation and support, and insufficient infrastructure may also play a role
in limiting the manifestation of responsible behaviour within the industry (Kasim, 2007).
Greater attention has been given to the role of CSR in hospitality, though it too lags behind other
industries (Sunpanti, et al., 2015). However, CSR has become increasingly relevant within
hospitality (Sheldon & Park, 2010), with a growing number of hotels investing substantial
resources in implementing CSR activities. These activities are designed not only to benefit
stakeholders (McGehee, et al., 2009) but also enable hotels to gain a competitive advantage
through improved image, increased market share, and enhanced profits (El Dief & Font, 2010;
Porter & Kramer, 2006). Thus given the heightened focus within practise, it is unsurprising that
CSR within hospitality has gained traction within the literature. Stemming from the wider
managerial literature and from hospitality management literature relating to staff and
11
environmental good practise, recent research has increasingly focused on the adoption of CSR
practises. Areas of concern include issues of managerial understandings of CSR and their
promotion to both staff and guests, the importance of CSR in the consumer decision making
process, the business case for CSR, and the role of CSR in stakeholder management (Ryan,
2015). Nevertheless, despite some progress, as Baum et al. (2016) suggest, the role of
employees and the workforce in relation to sustainable tourism and within the sustainable
tourism narrative remains neglected.
The success of pro-sustainable behaviour change is reliant on employee support and engagement.
As such, due to the critical role of employees in the implementation of CSR and the growing
importance of CSR and employee engagement within both tourism and hospitality, this research
examines both knowledge gaps and practical shortcomings concerned with the relationship
between CSR and employee engagement. A key knowledge gap addressed by this study includes
the lack of research regarding individual-level variables that may serve as mediators for CSR
(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012), specifically employees. Despite being critical to the success of CSR,
currently only a handful of studies explicitly focus on the involvement and engagement of
employees in CSR activities (Brammer, et al., 2007; Hongyue, 2011; Slack, et al., 2015;
Strandberg, 2009; Wolf, 2013). Furthermore, existing CSR literature provides little practical
guidance, instead promoting general principles for responding to environmental and social
issues (Sperry & Jetter, 2012). Consequently, greater attention in this area not only contributes
to the development of the CSR literature but also improved practise in business by enabling
practitioners to identify and address impediments to employee CSR engagement.
1.2. Research RationalDue to a complex mix of forces, including public demand, shareholder expectations, and the
changing role of government, a growing number of multinational corporations have begun to
practise corporate social responsibility (Rondinelli & Berry, 2000). Consequently, many
organisations have a corporate social responsibility agenda; however, many have yet to
overcome challenges associated with embedding CSR across the organisation (Glavas, 2016).
Though employees are increasingly expected to participate in CSR, there is a lack of
understanding about employee participation in CSR (Kim, et al., 2010) with employee
engagement in CSR programmemes remaining one of the largest knowledge gaps within the CSR
literature (Panagopoulos, 2016). Consequently, a lack of understanding of the barriers and
opportunities for employee involvement in CSR engagement contributes to less effective
business practise (Vinerean, et al., 2013). In his discussion of organisational psychology, Glavas
(2016, p. 144) argues that the focus has been “so much on what is good for the organisation,
that we have overlooked the actual driver, the engine, and the fuel”.
12
In response, this research analyses the relationship between employee engagement and CSR
interventions in the context of multinational tourism organisations, including both tour
operators and a hotel group. It contributes to understanding of employee CSR engagement by
not only analysing those factors that drive employees to engage in CSR but also analysing
factors that prevent disengaged, hard to reach employees from engaging in CSR interventions.
With this knowledge organisations are better able to facilitate employee engagement in CSR by
removing barriers that may have otherwise prevented employee engagement. In this way, an
organisation can maximise both employee engagement and corporate social responsibility
strategies, earning the benefits associated with organisational CSR efforts as well as from an
engaged workforce.
In addition to difficulties in making CSR operational, there remains a gap in the literature
regarding studies that examine the individual level foundations of CSR. As suggested by Coombs
and Holladay (2012), there is a tendency to limit the design of CSR strategies and
implementation to the hierarchy of the organisation. However, although CSR takes place at the
organisational level of analysis, it is individual actors within the organisation who actually are
tasked with disseminating CSR throughout the organisation. As Aguinis and Glavas (2012, p.
953) suggest, “we need a better understanding of the predictors that influence individuals to
carry out CSR activities” because it is these individuals who “actually strategize, make decisions,
and execute CSR decisions”. Indeed, learning about sustainability is a companywide necessity
and should therefore address employees across a wide range of business units, rather than
being restricted to the discourse of leaders and top management (Haugh & Talwar, 2010).
Nevertheless, as evidenced by Aguinis and Glavas’ (2012) literature review, CSR is still primarily
studied at the organisational level with a distinct lack of attention paid to individual levels of
analysis. Within the 588 articles reviewed, a meagre 4% analysed CSR at the individual level and
only 5% addressed two or more levels (ibid).
It is therefore unsurprising that there are more questions than answers when it comes to
employees and corporate social responsibility (Glavas & Piderit, 2009). Within the literature,
there is increasing demand that attention also be paid to non-customer stakeholder groups,
including employees (Berger, et al., 2006; Bhattacharya, et al., 2009; Sen, et al., 2006).
Specifically, there is a need for greater understanding of the predictors that influence these
individuals to carry out CSR activities. Attentive of this literature gap, several researchers have
called for further investment in the study of CSR impacts at the individual level of analysis
(Aguilera, et al., 2007; Maignan, 2001; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008; Van Buren, 2005). Stakeholder
theory therefore provides a valuable framework by which to examine the relationship between
organisational CSR initiatives and employees, a key stakeholder group. Furthermore, if used in
13
conjunction with identity theory, this research is able to identify aspects of social identity,
namely individual interest and values, which cause a diversity of engagement within a single
stakeholder group. Thus, this thesis contributes to the understanding of unique predictors
influencing different employees to engage and disengage from CSR. This thesis also makes a
methodological contribution to the literature with the majority of articles on employees being
quantitative studies that empirically test existing models through surveys (Glavas, 2016). While
these quantitative studies provide insight, there remains a need for additional insight gained by
inductively studying why, how, and when CSR affects employees (ibid). This calls for a more
grounded, case based approach, such as the methodology provided here.
Existing CSR research has focused on the correlation between leadership and responsible
behaviour (Waldman, et al., 2006; Swanson, 2008) or attempted to define socially responsible
leadership (Waldman & Siegel, 2008), with little attention devoted to the differences amongst
employees in relation to CSR, presupposing that this stakeholder group’s expectations, views
and attitudes are homogeneous (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). However, understanding the
variation amongst employees is important because it relates to key organisational outcomes,
including job satisfaction (Glavas & Kelley, 2014; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008; Vlachos, et al.,
2013b); organisational commitment (Brammer, et al., 2007; Ditlev-Simonsen, 2015; Farooq, et
al., 2014; Glavas & Kelley, 2014; Mueller, et al., 2012); organisational citisenship behaviour
(Frank, et al., 2011; Hansen, et al., 2011; Rupp, et al., 2013a); job performance (Carmeli, et al.,
2007); and retention (Hansen, et al., 2011; Jones, 2010). Moreover, when employees are
studied, it is often the views and voices of sustainability managers or top management which
are discussed (Helin & Sandström, 2008), meaning that there is often a failure to consider the
experience of lower level employees. While important, these individuals represent a minority of
those targeted by codes of ethics (ibid) and sustainability or CSR policies.
Calls for further research into employee CSR engagement have also been made specifically in
tourism and hospitality. For instance, Holcomb et al. (2007) acknowledge that although CSR is a
hot topic in most industries, research in the hospitality and tourism sector is lagging.
Furthermore, while tourism CSR research has explored the individual level in connection to
tourists’ opinions, the role of employee behaviours remains largely unknown (Deery, et al.,
2007; Chou, 2014). This knowledge gap exists in spite of employees being the core target for
behaviour change in CSR initiatives (Wells, et al., 2015). Furthermore, the relationship between
employee engagement and CSR interventions is of particular importance in the context of
tourism and hospitality as these industries are characterised by high turnover rates (Tesone &
Ricci, 2005) and face complex issues of responsibility arising through the involvement of human
actors and a dependence on the natural surroundings in which the tourism product unfolds
14
(Hall & Brown, 2006). As a result, fostering employee engagement is a critical competency as it
is these individuals who are responsible for employing ethical behaviour in the daily working
life of the organisation (Collier & Esteban, 2007). In addition to employee engagement, the
successful implementation of CSR initiatives provides tourism and hospitality organisations
with the chance to combat industry challenges associated with economic leakages (Fennell,
2006); societal and environmental disruption and degradation (Wall & Mathieson, 2006); and
stakeholder engagement (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999).
Consequently, by researching in the tourism and hospitality context, not only does this research
contribute to ‘mainstream’ literature, but also broadens understanding within the tourism and
hospitality literature by addressing issues of employee engagement and CSR within the
industry. Furthermore, the practical implications of this research contribute to improved
employee CSR engagement. Organisational leaders, management and change agents will be able
to hone efforts to foster engagement in sustainability initiatives, subsequently enhancing job
satisfaction as a side-effect of corporate responsible behaviour (Liu, et al., 2010) and enabling
the organisation to recognise both the benefits of both CSR and an engaged workforce.
1.3. Research QuestionIn what context do employees engage in CSR interventions in multinational tourism and
hospitality organisations?
1.4. Research Objectives1. To critique managerial practises used to engage employees in CSR interventions
2. To identify factors influencing employees’ decisions to engage in CSR interventions
3. To critically analyse factors preventing employees from engaging in CSR interventions
4. To identify ways to engage those employees who are otherwise not engaged in CSR
practises
1.5. Significance of ResearchThis thesis links together three main areas of research, namely hospitality and tourism,
employee engagement, and corporate social responsibility and thus contributes not only to
these areas individually, but also to the limited literature at their juncture. It draws on
additional research from business management, organisational psychology, organisational
behaviour, human resource management, leadership, and many additional subjects to provide a
multidisciplinary study that contributes a more comprehensive understanding of employee CSR
engagement.
15
Critically, this research explores employee CSR engagement at the individual level and through a
person-centric focus. It is focused on the subjective experience of individual employees and thus
contributes to the understanding of the individual and relative experience of individuals as they
engage with organisational CSR. This is important because though it is on behalf of corporations
that acts of CSR are planned and completed, it is truly individuals who advocate for, comply
with, and participate in CSR (Rupp & Mallory, 2015). By exploring the relationship between
individual employees and CSR interventions, this research also contributes to call for CSR
research at the individual level of analysis (i.e. employees and teams) (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012;
Carmeli, et al., 2007). The majority of extant CSR measurement and analysis has been at the
organisational level (Glavas & Kelley, 2014) and thus, has failed to accurately capture employee
perceptions of organisational CSR (Glavas, 2016).
Furthermore, beyond contributing to individual level understanding of CSR, by drawing on
organisational level predictors, a multi-layered perspective is provided. In order to avoid
creating a divide between organisational and individual level CSR research, both Aguinis and
Glavas (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012) and Glavas (2016) stress the importance of multilevel analysis,
which the extant literature currently lacks (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Lovia Boateng, 2014).
Through multilevel CSR research it is possible to analyse individual differences in how
employees understand and engage with corporate social responsibility and those organisational
factors that may influence this engagement. Scholarship therefore benefits from understanding
these more complex findings as a more holistic model for employee CSR engagement can be
built.
This thesis presents a model for employee engagement drawn from a multilevel analysis of
employee CSR engagement, which has both key theoretical and practical implications. This
model emerged through the critical evaluation of employee experiences in organisational
corporate social responsibility. The research benefited by being both backwards and forwards
looking; it was backwards looking as it evaluated existing interventions, as well as forwards
looking, drawing upon the experiences of employees engaged in CSR in order to create an
improved model for future use. By analysing individual engagement in CSR, the proposed model
addresses inefficiencies in CSR engagement arising from hard to reach employees who are
disconnected from sustainability efforts. Practise therefore benefits because organisations
interested in CSR can identify opportunities and barriers to CSR engagement for a range of
different employees. By removing barriers and promoting opportunities for CSR engagement,
organisations can successfully engage a greater number of employees.
16
In addition to a model for engagement, this research has applied management learning
opportunities, providing tangible advice for managers. In particular, it increases manager
awareness about the multiplicity of employee CSR engagement and provides solutions to reach
a range of employees with different levels of engagement in organisational CSR. Furthermore, it
provides new insights into the efficiency of existing CSR strategies and suggests alternative
means by which to engage employees.
1.6. Thesis StructureThe thesis is organised into nine chapters. Chapter 1 provides the introduction, including a brief
description of the research rational, question and objectives. The introduction is then followed
by a review of the literature in Chapters 2, 3, and 4; a discussion of the research philosophy and
chosen methodology in Chapter 5; an analysis of key research findings in Chapters 6, 7, and 8;
and lastly, Chapter 9 offers a discussion of research findings as well as conclusions, highlighting
theoretical and practical contributions and providing recommendations for future research.
Chapter 2: Corporate Social Responsibility Chapter 2 provides an overview of relevant academic literature concerning corporate social
responsibility. It outlines the definition of CSR as it is used in this research, emphasising the role
and importance of stakeholder theory in corporate social responsibility. A number of relevant
theories are touched upon and CSR taxonomies are reviewed, demonstrating the tendency to
examine CSR and engagement from the organisational, rather than individual, level. This is
followed by an overview of opportunities and barriers for CSR that provides insight into the
manifestation of responsible behaviour within organisations. Lastly, a review of CSR in the
context of tourism and hospitality outlines the setting for this research.
Chapter 3: CSR and the Business OrganisationThe purpose of Chapter 3 is to review the relationship between CSR and business organisations.
Due to the central role of the individual for the research question, begins with a review of the
social identity literature, examining the organisational context through an identity lens. It
highlights contextual factors of CSR in multinational organisations, as well reviewing the
importance of organisational culture, types of CSR intervention, and CSR leadership. Focus then
shifts to the psychological mechanism underlying the effect of CSR on individuals, followed by a
discussion of individual level CSR and the need for person-centric perspectives of CSR.
Chapter 4: Employee EngagementA discussion of employee engagement and CSR is provided in Chapter 4, underpinning the
research question for this thesis. The chapter begins by highlighting existing research into
employee engagement as well as employee disengagement. It identifies beneficial organisational
17
outcomes realised through employee engagement, thus contextualising the growing interest in
engagement by businesses. However, while it is possible to examine engagement more broadly,
the focus of this work is on employee CSR engagement, which is subsequently where attention
then turns. Identity theory and its role in employee CSR engagement is reviewed due to the
influence of identity on employees’ attitudinal and behavioural reactions to CSR. Both
antecedents to engagement as well as practical approaches to employee engagement are
discussed, followed by a conceptual framework, which provides the scope and structure of the
research problem. This is followed by a discussion of approaches utilised for designing and
evaluating engagement interventions.
Chapter 5: MethodologyThe methodology chapter explains the strategy employed to achieve the research objectives.
This section begins by revisiting research aims and objectives, followed by an explanation of the
choice in research philosophy and approach. An overview of research methods then explores
the merits and relevance of semi-structured interviews and case study research. In order to
contextualise employee responses and subsequent findings, an overview of each organisations’
approach to corporate social responsibility is provided. Next, the procedure for analysing
qualitative data is supplied, followed by a discussion of the ethical considerations and access to
research participants for this study.
Chapter 6: The Spectrum of CSR EngagementChapter 6 forms the first of three discussion chapters for this research. The chapter begins by
presenting a model for CSR engagement, which has been developed from the research findings.
Following this, findings are contextualised by identifying the type of CSR intervention
employees participate in. Lastly, as it is central to organisational planning and practice,
strategies to communicate CSR efforts and their effectiveness on employee CSR engagement are
examined.
Chapter 7: The Role of Leadership and CultureThough a key contribution of this research is its analysis of CSR at the individual level,
organisational level factors are also seen to influence employee CSR engagement. The purpose
of Chapter 7 is therefore to critically analyse the influence of overarching organisational aspects
that influence employee CSR engagement. This chapter therefore begins with a discussion of key
attributes of effective CSR leadership, namely genuineness and passion. Following this, a review
of types of CSR leaders is provided. Leadership is not constrained to formal roles and thus CSR
leaders from across the organisation are explored. Lastly, organisational culture and the role of
sub-cultures in employee CSR engagement are examined.
18
Chapter 8: Barriers and Facilitators of CSR EngagementChapter 7 explores barriers and facilitators of CSR engagement for a range of different
employees. It begins with a broad review of all organisational employees by addressing the
employee attributions of organisational CSR. This is followed by the perceived benefits of
participation, identifying where variations occur between perceived benefits by engaged
employees and disengaged employees. Following this is a discussion of intervention design,
touching upon key elements of CSR projects that are seen to drive engagement and
disengagement. In order to understand the unique opportunities and barriers that drive hard to
reach employees who are disengaged from organisational CSR, focus then turns to disengaged
employees and their role within the organisation. Narrowing its focus from all employees to
specifically those who are disengaged employees, this chapter
Chapter 9: Discussion and ConclusionsThe purpose of Chapter 9 is to answer the research question, bringing together the objectives of
this study with the resulting findings. In addition to answering the research question, this
chapter highlights the significance and originality of the research through a discussion of
theoretical and practical contributions that have been achieved. The chapter then concludes by
identifying any limitations of the work and providing recommendations for future research.
19
Chapter 2: Corporate Social Responsibility
2.1. IntroductionThe concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gained unprecedented momentum in
both research and practise. However, as it is still characterised by numerous competing
definitions, this chapter serves to set parameters around CSR as it is used within this research. It
reviews relevant theories and taxonomies, illustrating the ways in which key aspects of CSR
relate to this research.
While these sections serve to demonstrate the variety within CSR theory and understanding,
such is its popularity that despite confusion over the definition of CSR, many organisations have
rebranded their core values to include social responsibility. Consequently, following a
discussion of theories of CSR, the business case for CSR and its implications for employee CSR
engagement are reviewed. This is followed by a discussion of organisational opportunities and
barriers to CSR and their affect on both organisation and employees engagement in corporate
responsibility. Illustrating the unique nature of the hospitality and tourism industry and the
ways in which industry specific elements may affect the development of corporate
responsibility behaviour subsequently provides additional context.
2.2. Defining Corporate Social ResponsibilityWhile the focus of this work is not to address nor untangle the myriad of definitions for
corporate social responsibility, in order to contextualise both the findings and discussion, it is
important to define CSR as it is used in this thesis. This section therefore begins by identifying
the definition used within this research, followed by a discussion of specific elements from the
CSR debate relevant to the definition applied and to this research more generally.
Based on the definition of Aguinis (2011) and adopted by others (e.g. Bauman and Skitka, 2012;
Glavas, 2016a; Rupp, 2011; Rupp et al., 2011) CSR is defined as: “context-specific organisational
actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line
of economic, social, and environmental performance” (Aguinis, 2011, p. 855). This definition
captures several key elements of CSR, namely organisational context, stakeholder expectations,
and the triple bottom line, the significance of which will now be discussed in turn.
Firstly, a context specific definition of CSR is important for several reasons. It acknowledges that
stakeholder expectations are context specific and thus, can change from group to group and
location to location (Aguinis, 2011). This reflects the difficulty in setting policies and actions
that can be universally labelled as responsible, as well as diversity in expectations within and
20
between stakeholder groups. This is of particular importance in hospitality and tourism, which
is challenged by diverse cultural and geographical contexts. Furthermore, the diversity of
stakeholder expectations, and the relation of these expectations to context, is relevant to the
discussion of employee engagement and disengagement in CSR.
Consideration must be given to context within the organisation itself when examining
employees and organisational phenomena. For example, employee engagement is not only
bounded by individual differences but also the context within which individuals experience
corporate social responsibility. Thus, as Christian et al. (2009) contend, it is important to
consider both individual differences as well as context when examining the perceptual,
emotional, cognitive, and behavioural processes of individuals and groups. This highlights the
importance of understanding employees’ experiences as context-specific and intentionally
shaped accounts, rather than objective representations or true meanings. Consideration of the
organisational context surrounding employee CSR engagement contributes to multilevel
analysis and enables this thesis to contribute to understanding of the role of the organisation in
constructing and shaping employee CSR engagement, specifically in relation to employees’ CSR
experiences and understanding of the concept.
Secondly, stakeholders and stakeholder expectations form an important component of this
definition. Stakeholders refer to anyone who has a moral claim on the actions of its firm, such as
consumers, competitors, suppliers, government, and employees (Kaler, 2006). With analysis
often centred on the relationship between organisation’s and external stakeholders (e.g.
customers, clients, vendors, and governments), employees remain a frequently overlooked
stakeholder. Yet, employees are a key stakeholder and are central to the success of corporate
social responsibility, both affected by and able to affect its development (Jenkin et al., 2011;
Lamm et al., 2014). Furthermore, with CSR influencing the consumer decision-making process
and a growing number of employees seeking responsible employers (Greening and Turban,
2000), corporate social responsibility that does not capture the stakeholder dimension fails to
be reflective of current norms and social expectations.
Critically, this definition also specifies taking into account stakeholder expectations, which
means going beyond stakeholder analysis and stakeholder management to stakeholder
engagement (Manetti, 2011). This extends organisational behaviour beyond merely placating
stakeholders to actively involving them in the decision making process. This is an important
extension to stakeholder management because employees are increasingly expected not just to
have an opinion about corporate responsibility but to be active participants in its creation,
adoption, and dissemination.
21
Lastly, the definition refers to the triple bottom line (TBL) of economic, social, and
environmental performance. Argued to be the most comprehensive approach to achieving
sustainable operations (Dwyer, 2005), the triple bottom line reflects progress in practice with
organisations increasingly including social and environmental commitments in their core
mission statements, measuring social and environmental results alongside financial ones (Afrin,
2013; García de Leaniz et al., 2012). While there are many different approaches to corporate
responsibility, the triple bottom line argues for the integration of these responsible behaviours
into core business activities. In contrast, by placing social responsibilities at the top, Carol’s
pyramid, for example, treats the social responsibilities of business as additional activities
largely separate from core business activities. However, the triple bottom line is argued to be of
greater value for hospitality and tourism, as the industry is uniquely dependent on the natural
and social environment (Dwyer, 2005; Dwyer and Kim, 2003).
It is also worth noting that in addition to parameters set by the definition of CSR, further
constraints emerge through employee understanding of what constitutes organisational CSR. In
general, CSR can refer to a range of policies and practices, such as sustainable supply chain
management, environmental management systems, community engagement, or those
interventions designed to engage employees rather than the organisation more generally in pro-
sustainable behaviour change, such as through corporate volunteering or fundraising. However,
as became clear that within the case study organisations, employees largely understood CSR to
be specific elements of the organisations overarching corporate responsibility strategy, rather
than referring to the strategy as a whole. Consequently, due to the range of ways in which CSR
policy and practice can be operationalised and employees’ diverse and fragmented
understanding of the concept, it is important to set parameters for CSR within this research so it
is clear which elements of CSR are being examined.
As the main focus of employee responses, the forms of corporate responsibility discussed in this
thesis largely refer to corporate fundraising and corporate volunteering. Employee
understanding of CSR limited to these two, often peripheral, activities raises several questions
surrounding CSR communication and employee understanding and engagement with corporate
responsibility. The organisations involved in this research actively pursue a range of initiatives
within the domain of corporate social responsibility, including reducing carbon emissions and
water use, collaborating with local communities, investing in education, and developing more
sustainable products and thus, the limited understanding of employees may be reflective of a
lack of greater CSR awareness and engagement.
22
2.3. Theories of Corporate Social Responsibility This chapter reviews existing approaches to CSR, outlining those theories that are of particular
relevance to this work. Attempts to scrutinise and map the landscape of CSR ideas and theories
reveal its complexity. However, while the concept is far from being unanimous, most definitions
contain certain similarities. Among the attempts to classify CSR theories, one of the most
comprehensive and exemplary models referenced is that by Garriga and Melé (2004), who
distinguish between four different groups of CSR theories: economic, political, integrative, and
ethical theories.
While integrative and ethical theories are more pertinent to this work, both economic and
political theories are also reviewed. This is because, as argued by Garriga and Melé (2004, p.
64), “the concept of business and society relationship must include these four aspects or
dimensions and some connection among them must exist”. Secondly, together this brief
overview of CSR theories also demonstrates that CSR is mostly studied in a macro-institutional
context. Focus is often on the relationship between the corporation and external stakeholders,
such as customers, clients, vendors, and governments. Current studies, especially those
following an instrumental approach in line with Milton Friedman’s (1970) argument that the
only responsibility of the firm is the maximisation of profits, largely take a functionalist
understanding of organisations. Firms are simply regarded as instrumental sites for the
implementation and execution of CSR (Costas & Kärreman, 2013) and thus, little attention is
paid to the internal organisational processes surrounding CSR. Nevertheless, the ways in which
CSR are understood and practised, as well as resisted, in organisations has key implications for
both strategy and practise. Exploring CSR from the individual level, with subsequent
consideration given to the organisational context and processes surrounding CSR, thus forms a
key contribution of this research.
2.3.1. Economic TheoryIn economic CSR the corporation is seen exclusively as an instrument for wealth creation
(Crane, et al., 2008). This is supported by Shareholder Value Theory (SVT) or Fiduciary
Capitalism, which maintains that the only responsibility of business is to make profits. Other
social activities pursued by an organisation are considered acceptable only if prescribed by law
or if they contribute to the maximisation of shareholder value. These theories underlie
neoclassical economic theory, which is primarily concerned with shareholder utility
maximisation (Melé, 2009). Given his renowned objection to the adoption of social
responsibilities by businesses, Milton Friedman is recognised as a key representative of this
view (Carroll, 1998; Crane, et al., 2008; Garriga & Melé, 2004). This is evidenced by one of
Friedman’s (1970) most notorious arguments that the sole responsibility of business towards
23
society is the maximisation of profits to the shareholders, within the legal and ethical
frameworks of the country.
However, as suggested by Garriga and Melé (2004), concern for profits does not exclude taking
into account the interests of stakeholders. As such, it is argued that in certain conditions
satisfying stakeholder interests can contribute to maximising shareholder value (Sprinkle &
Maines, 2010). Indeed, profit maximising CSR, first modelled in the research of Baron (2001)
and McWilliams and Siegel (2001), suggests that firms can act in a socially responsible way in
anticipation of financial benefits gained from this behaviour (Bagnoli & Watts, 2003). Examples
of such benefits might include reputation enhancement (Fombrun, et al., 2000), the ability to
charge a premium price for output (Robinson, et al., 2008), or the use of CSR to recruit and
retain high quality workers (Mirvis, 2012).
Nevertheless, in practice, shareholder value theory often reflects short-term profits, such as a
reduction in personnel expenses, rather than long-term profitability (Melé, 2009). This poses a
problem for CSR as it is understood within this research for two key reasons. Firstly, it largely
discounts the role of additional stakeholders despite increasing evidence that long-term
economic success cannot be achieved unless organisations look beyond shareholder interests to
consider employees, customers, suppliers, local communities, and other stakeholders (Dwyer,
2005). It simultaneously overstates the importance of financial capital, which is neither the only
asset nor the main asset of a company (Melé, 2009), with human capital increasingly recognised
as a critical asset for organisational success.
Furthermore, economic theories of CSR adopt a largely functionalist understanding of the
organisation. Not only does this give greater emphasis to macro, rather than micro, level
research, it follows the functionalist understanding that “society has a concrete, real existence,
and a systemic character oriented to produce an ordered and regulated state of affairs”
(Morgan, 1980, p. 4). As a result, the functionalist paradigm is ineffective in examining
phenomena from the individual level, particularly when looking at individuals who deviate from
the norm. This research therefore adopts an interpretive paradigm (see Section 5.3), suggesting
that what passes as social reality does not exist in any concrete sense but is rather the product
of the subjective and inter-subjective experience of individuals. Phenomena are thus
understood from the standpoint of the participant, rather than the observer, therefore enabling
the researcher to explore individual employees’ experiences engaging in corporate social
responsibility. Consequently, while economic theory has informed the development of CSR
theory, alternative theoretical developments within the corporate responsibility literature are
better suited to this research.
24
2.3.2. Political TheoryOutside of economic corporate social responsibility, there exist a number of CSR theories with a
political focus. Garriga and Melé (2004) depict these theories as concentrating on the
interactions between business and society and the responsible use of power. With the declining
role of state and subsequent change in the responsibility of businesses, recent years have seen a
rise in interest in political theories of CSR (Kemper and Martin, 2011). Indeed, political theory
has played an integral role in the shift away from the narrow functionalist vision of business
that reduces it to merely an economic entity. Though it does not disregard the basic economic
responsibility of business, political theories emphasise the social and ethical dimensions of
business. Nevertheless, as they are concerned with the role of business in society, these theories
understandably focus on the macro level of analysis, examining the wider political, economic,
and societal dynamics.
Two of the most distinguished political theories include Corporate Constitutionalism and
Corporate Citizenship. Corporate constitutionalism, which was first examined by Davis (1960),
is concerned with the role of power that businesses have in society and the impact of this power
on others. Davis proposes two principles: firstly the social power equation which suggests that
the greater the power of a corporation, the greater their social responsibility; and secondly, the
iron law of responsibility, which predicts that where corporations do not use their power, they
tend to lose it (Davis, 1960; Davis, 1967).
Corporate Citizenship (CC), as suggested by Carroll (1999), is an extension of work in the
management literature that conceptualises the role of business in society, most notably
dominated by the concept of CSR. Corporate citizenship has been introduced into the CSR
discourse in the last few years (Matten & Crane, 2005); however, as with corporate social
responsibility, despite being applied in the debate of business’ social responsibilities, the usage
of CC has neither been consistent nor clear (ibid). Nevertheless, broadly speaking, corporate
citizenship views the corporation as “[…] a societal institution that has obtained the legal status
of a person/citizen and debates the approximate mix of rights and responsibilities that should
(or should not) follow this status” (Jones & Haigh, 2007).
This is consistent with arguments in favour of embodying an organisation with rights and
responsibilities (Valor, 2005). Corporate citizenship is based on the notion that business
corporations have similar legal and moral responsibilities to those of individual citizens
(Richter & Jenkins, 2003). As suggested by Carroll (1998), if businesses wish to be regarded as
good corporate citizens, they must abide by and integrate legal compliance into corporate
strategies and operational management. However, as suggested by Banerjee (2008) using
corporate citizenship to support the existence of a legal soul for an artificial corporate person
25
risks confusing citizenship with personhood, thus a corporation cannot be a citizen in the same
way that a person can and is only considered a person in so far as its legal status.
2.3.3. Integrative TheoryIntegrative theories examine how organisations integrate social demands into business
operations and are exemplified in stakeholder theory and corporate social performance
(Okoye, 2009). These theories contend that businesses depend on society for their existence
and thus it is integral to business survival that organisations acknowledge and integrate social
demands into business operations (Donaldson, 1982; Donaldson and Dunfee, 1994; Frederick,
1994; Garriga & Melé, 2004). As a result, it is argued that firms should give back to society with
examples of such activities including philanthropic contributions, providing training for the
unemployed, or offering childcare services for working mothers (Carrol , 1979).
This is reflective of the approach to corporate responsibility adopted by all three case study
organisations examined in this research. The dependency of organisations on society is a
defining characteristic of the hospitality and tourism industry in which a firm’s success is
completely reliant on the natural and social environment (Jones et al., 2014a). Furthermore,
because integrative CSR theory specifies that decision-making by organisations must consider
economic, social and environmental impacts (Freeman, 2010), it is consistent with the triple
bottom line focus of CSR as it is defined and applied in this research (see Section 2.2). Moreover,
integrating social demands into business operations demands greater consideration of the role
and responsibility of managers in facilitating corporate social responsibility, with the critique of
managerial practice a key objective of this research.
2.3.4. Ethical TheoryEthical theories for corporate social responsibility focus on ethics and the notion of doing what
is ‘good’ or ‘right’ for society. However, given the ambiguity of these terms, ethical CSR is
susceptible to varied interpretation (Okoye, 2009). These theories include stakeholder theory,
universal rights based on human rights, sustainable development and common good approach
(Garriga & Melé, 2004).
While stakeholder theory has been included with integrative theories because it can be
considered a form of management to integrate social demands, it is also an ethical theory and
thus appropriate for both categories. In direct contrast with shareholder theory, stakeholder
theory takes into account individuals or groups with a ‘stake’ in or claim on the company.
Stakeholders are individuals or groups with legitimate interest in the benefit or harm resulting
from corporate activity (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). From this perspective, corporate social
responsibility is taken to mean that corporations have an obligation which falls beyond the
26
requirements of the law, towards key groups in society, not just stockholders (Crane, et al.,
2008). The relevance of stakeholder theory to this thesis is discussed in depth in Section 2.4,
however, it is also included here due to the importance of it being integrated in both integrative
and ethical theories of CSR. With ties to both, CSR strategy based on stakeholder theory may
therefore stem from strategic and/or ethical motives, which will have key implications for the
ways in which CSR unfolds within the organisation, as well as subsequent employee
engagement.
In particular, CSR efforts that stem from the desire to do what is ‘right’ or ‘good’ are intrinsically
linked to leadership and those organisational leaders who are driving responsible behaviour
that extends beyond the requirements of the law. The important role of leadership in corporate
social responsibility materializes in a number of ways. Due to the financial and human resources
available to senior leadership, these individuals set priorities and determine strategic directive,
thus critically influencing the development of corporate social responsibility within their
organizations (Hemingway and Maclagan, 2004). These individuals affect whether firms choose
to engage in CSR, as well as the types of CSR interventions organizations subsequently pursue.
The behaviour of leadership is subsequently seen to set boundary conditions for employee CSR
engagement with the performance and communication of leaders able to influence employee
participation (Chen and Hung-Baesecke, 2014).
As evidenced by Section 2.3, a number of different typologies have been proposed with
confusion about CSR still evident in the broadly scattered literature on diverse CSR practises
(Matten & Moon, 2004; García de Leaniz, Pérez Ruiz, & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2012). As such,
there is a support for Matten and Moon’s (2004) argument that CSR can be accepted as a cluster
concept, overlapping with concepts of business ethics, corporate philanthropy, corporate
citizenship, sustainability and environmental responsibility. It therefore becomes increasingly
clear that despite attempts to map theories and approaches to CSR, there are no clear-cut
categories or definitions, with a great deal of overlap occurring in the use of theories and
approaches (Okoye, 2009). In addition, the vague terminology surrounding CSR results in
competing definitions, variations in interpretation and the misuse or mislabelling of
terminology, all of which contribute to the difficulty in analysing and evaluating CSR (Clarkson,
1995), all of which serve to emphasise the importance of providing a clear definition for CSR as
it is used within research. For the definition of CSR as it is used in this thesis, please refer to
Section 2.2.
27
2.4. Stakeholder Theory and CSRGiven the integration of a stakeholder approach into a number of corporate social responsibility
theories, it is perhaps unsurprising that a considerable section of CSR scholarship has proposed
ways to advance CSR using stakeholder theory (Clarkson et al., 1994; Freeman and Phillips,
2002). Stakeholder theory is a fitting framework by which to examine corporate responsibility
because, while CSR emphasizes the role of businesses in society (Carroll, 2016), organisations,
which sit at the center of a complex web of stakeholder relationships, manage relationships with
specific stakeholder groups, rather than with society at large (Jamali, 2008).
Underpinned by an assumption of diversity of interests between stakeholder groups, rather
than commonality of interest amongst stakeholder groups, stakeholder theory assumes that
stakeholders are distinct groups with valid needs and interest. Therefore, should conflict exist
between the interest of stakeholder groups and the organisation, stakeholder theory provides a
valuable tool by which to understanding diverse organisational stakeholder interests. As
illustrated by Frooman (1999, p. 193), “if the potential for conflict did not exist – that is if the
firm and all its stakeholders were largely in agreement – managers would have no need to
concern themselves with stakeholders or stakeholder theory”. However, while mindful of
diversity between groups, stakeholder theory often assumes homogeneity within stakeholder
groups and subsequently assumes shared values and interests (see Section 2.4.2.).
Furthermore, stakeholder theory lacks clear definitions, with the term ‘stakeholder’ considered
an “essentially contested concept” with multiple interpretations (Miles, 2012). Thus far,
stakeholder identification has focused on the relationship of individuals and groups in relation
to the organisation, leading to categorisations along the lines of “customers, suppliers,
employees, shareholders, and community” (McVea and Freeman 2005, p. 62). As a result,
stakeholders are predominantly defined by their generic economic function (e.g. to consume,
invest, supply, etc.). However, when stakeholders are generalised and categorised by the roles
that they play, it becomes easier for organisations to separate decision making from those
stakeholders who are affected by these decisions (ibid).
Not only does this pose a challenge for the integration of human values in business decisions,
stakeholder claims stem from a broad range of demographic, cultural, political, and societal
affiliations that are not always easily reconciled within the typical firm-generated economically
oriented stakeholder role. As Crane and Ruebottom (2011) contend, when stakeholders make
claims on the firm, they do not do so simply on the basis of being within economically oriented
roles attributed by the organisation. Therefore, in order to effectively understand the values and
expectations of stakeholders and to manage stakeholder relationships, organisations require a
28
more sophisticated understanding of the identification that drives group membership. There is
a subsequent need to consider stakeholders in terms of their social identities and the interests,
ideologies, values, and expectations these identities bring forward in relation to the
organisation (Crane et al., 2004; den Hond and de Bakker, 2007; Rowley and Moldoveanu,
2003).
This thesis therefore moves towards an enhanced model of employee CSR engagement by
identifying, potentially divergent, individual interests and needs amongst employees as a
stakeholder group. Reflecting on the multiplicity of identity, a finer-grained understanding of
employees as a stakeholder group is presented. Thus, by applying both stakeholder theory and
social identity theory (see Section 3.2.) to the research findings, this thesis moves away from the
treatment of employees as objects, a dominant paradigm within I-O, which ultimately limits the
understanding of the ways in which humans relate to work (Weiss and Rupp, 2011). Not only
does this address gaps in the literature concerning differences amongst employees in relation to
CSR understanding and engagement (Rodrigo and Arenas, 1008), it also addresses what McVea
and Freeman (2005) suggest is an overemphasis on stakeholder roles, rather than relationships
and identity. By examining individual differences from the employee level perspective, this
research addresses assumptions of homogeneity within employees as a stakeholder group and
highlights the importance of the individual and individual experience in employee CSR
engagement.
2.4.1. Employees as a Key Stakeholder GroupEmployees are almost exclusively identified as a primary stakeholder group (Greenwood, 2008;
Greenwood and Freeman, 2011). Closely integrated with the firm, employees hold a unique role
among stakeholders (Crane and Matten, 2004). These individuals both affect and can be affected
by organisational activities and thus play a key role in the success or failure of their
organisation (Azim 2016; Freeman, 1984). Specifically, the stakeholder perspective places
employees as a key organisational stakeholder in relation to corporate social responsibility.
Collier and Esteban (2004) highlight the dependence of organisations on employee
responsiveness to and engagement for the effective delivery of CSR interventions. Accordingly,
employees CSR engagement plays a critical role in the implementation of effective CSR activities.
Nevertheless, most studies of CSR have focused on external stakeholders (e.g. consumers), with
effects of CSR on internal stakeholders left comparatively unexplored (Post et al., 2002; Collier
and Esteban, 2007; Kaler, 2009). Examining the role and relationship of employees with
corporate social responsibility thus forms a key contribution of this thesis.
29
2.4.2. Homogenising Stakeholder InterestsAn important step in understanding employees as a stakeholder group is the recognition of
employees as individuals with names and faces (Greenwood and Freeman, 2011; McVea and
Freeman, 2005). Historically, most theorists have defined stakeholders according to a set of
simple generic roles with the firm: customers, suppliers, employees, and shareholders, etc. Few
have questioned the value of analysing stakeholders as generic groups based on their roles
(McVea and Freeman, 2005). As a result, much discussion has taken place about the normative
claims of stakeholder groups in general (Burton and Dunn, 1996; Clarkson, 1998; Hahn, 2015),
the legitimacy of various stakeholder groups (Backstrand, 2006; Mitchell et al., 1997; Phillips,
2003), and the priority that management should give to these groups (Mitchell et al., 1997).
In contrast, this research proposes case-based stakeholder research that provides a finer
grained understanding of stakeholder groups. Stakeholders have begun to challenge the borders
between traditional stakeholder groups. For example, as organisations become flatter, front-line
employees may become better informed than their managers; customers are frequently
completing tasks formerly carried out by employees, including pumping gas and checking out
from the grocery store; and many employees have become significant holders of equity within
their organisations (McVea and Freeman, 2005). Employees may also belong to more than one
stakeholder category (Greenwood, 2001). For example, an employee may also be a member of
the local community, active in a union, a manager in the organisation, or some combination of
these (Greenwood, 2008). Therefore, with stakeholder relationships becoming more complex,
generic classifications of stakeholders as a single homogenous group is no longer adequate,
reflecting the need to recognise differences amongst employees in relation to their experience
and engagement with corporate social responsibility. This calls for a more grounded, case based
approach, such as the methodology presented here.
Currently, most stakeholder theorists assume homogeneity of interests and priorities within
stakeholder groups (Wolfe and Putler 2002; Greenwood, 2001) on the grounds that stakeholder
groups are delineated by shared interests. Shared interests, however, do not imply shared
values (Provis, 1996) or absence of divergent interests. While individuals comprising a
stakeholder group share interests, they may only do so to the extent that they act in unison in
their relationship with the organisation, or with other stakeholder groups but may not
necessarily share broader interests or values. Indeed, as illustrated by Greenwood (2001),
stakeholder groups are rarely homogeneous. Despite a tendency within the literature to treat
the organisation as a “black box” (Howard-Grenville, 2006; Linnenluecke et al., 2007),
organisations are made up of individuals from a wide range of racial and cultural backgrounds,
with varying circumstances, abilities, limitations, and work arrangements. Stakeholder groups
30
are increasingly diverse with employees, for example, belonging to different ethical, gender, and
political groups. While these individuals may still hold common interests in relation to the
organisation (e.g. the survival of the company), they may also hold different values to the
organisation and to other employees within the organisation, despite belonging to the same
stakeholder group (Greenwood, 2001).
Consequently, when studying employees, beyond a shared interest in relation to the
organisation, individual employee interests and priorities likely deviate. There is therefore
room to examine values and interests in relation to corporate social responsibility, and the
potential divergence of these interests, within employees as a stakeholder group. By examining
the unique antecedents to employee engagement and disengagement, this thesis argues against
the implicit assumption within stakeholder literature that all stakeholder groups are relatively
homogenous, suggesting that this notion of homogeneity may negatively impact the
understanding of organisation-stakeholder relationships and in the context of employee CSR
engagement, limit the ability of organisations to effectively engage a broad range of employees
in corporate social responsibility interventions.
2.5. CSR TaxonomyWithin the literature, there is yet to be consensus on the appropriate taxonomy for CSR
(Horrigan, 2010). However, within the CSR literature, different dimensions of the CSR taxonomy
have been examined, contributing to clarity and understanding of the concept. Many of these
aspects can be placed into three broad categories, each of which holds different implications for
research and practice. The key attributes of each category, as well as the implications for
research and practice in relation to this thesis will subsequently be identified.
The first dimension of CSR is concerned with whether corporate responsibility is focused purely
on shareholder gains or if it is focused on the wellbeing of all stakeholders (Figge & Hahn, 2004;
Laszlo, 2008). The assumption underpinning this classification of CSR is that establishing good
relationships with stakeholders is beneficial both ethically and financially to an organisation
and therefore has a positive effect on corporate long-term sustainable value (Cai & Wheale,
2004). The shareholder view of CSR is very much focused on economic capital; however, this is
in conflict with the tourism and hospitality industry, which is dependent on economic, social,
and natural capital. Thus, a current analysis of CSR within this context necessitates meeting the
needs of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
The second dimension of CSR is concerned with whether CSR is symbolic (self-serving) or
substantive (other-serving). Substantive versus symbolic CSR is concerned with the degree of
31
congruence between intentions and actions (David et al., 2007; Tenbrunsel et al., 2000). David
et al. (2007) build on the definition of Ashforth and Gibbs (1990b) to define substantive as real
change, while symbolic change creates the appearance of change while no actual change takes
place. Delmas and Burbano (2011) suggest that a number of firms engage in behaviour designed
to mislead stakeholders about social and environmental achievements, commonly referred to as
“green washing”. Within the literature, the terms “symbolic” and “substantive” are subsequently
used to differentiate possible green washers from genuine commitment (Jiang & Bansal, 2003;
King & Lenox, 2000). As suggested by Perez-Batres et al. (2012), symbolic management is not a
new topic with several studies within the management literature decoupling symbolic actions
from actual implementation (Berrone, et al., 2009; Stevens, et al., 2005; Weaver, et al., 1999;
Westphal & Zajac, 2001).
Understanding organisational CSR to be substantive or symbolic has key implications for a
number of stakeholders. For example, consumers may view efforts by organisations that appear
disingenuous as green washing and subsequently may drive stakeholders to punish firms
(Walker & Wan, 2012). However, while much of the focus within the literature has been on
consumer perceptions, a nascent stream of literature has conducted research at the individual
level, exploring employee attributions of organisational CSR as substantive or symbolic (see, for
example, Donia & Sirsly, 2016; Godfrey, 2005; Vlachos, et al., 2010; Vlachos, et al., 2013a;
2013b). Research by Glavas and Goodwin (2013) suggests that employee perceptions of
organisational CSR are often more important than organisational reality. Notably, employee
perceptions of CSR vary and subsequently, the resulting influence of CSR perception on work
attitudes and behaviour may vary as well (Glavas, 2016). For example, some employees might
perceive that if CSR is not substantive, it is then green washing (i.e., inauthentic) whereas for
some employees who might only care about the impact of CSR on the reputation of the
organisation, symbolic CSR could have a positive impact on their organisational identification
(ibid). Importantly, employee attributions of CSR as symbolic rather than substantive, is shown
to have negative implications for positive employee outcomes, including employee engagement
(Donia & Sirsly, 2016). It therefore becomes increasingly important to question which aspects of
CSR intervention design cause employees to perceive organisational policy and practice as
symbolic or substantive, and how these drivers may vary between different groups of
employees.
The third dimension of corporate responsibility considers whether CSR is peripheral or
embedded in the firm, where embedded CSR is integrated into the strategy as well as daily
operations of the organisation (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011; Aguinis & Glavas, 2013). It is
frequently argued that CSR needs to move from being a peripheral concern to being a core
32
concern, fully integrated into all business functions (Cowe, 2004; Dickson, 2004). This reflects a
shift in the literature from whether to do CSR to how to engage in CSR (Smith, 2003). As
Pedersen and Neergaard (2008) suggest, in order to embed CSR within the organisation, it must
first be integrated into the management frameworks and measurement tools of mainstream
business. If an organisation is able to successfully embed CSR, these activities become more fully
integrated into organisational strategy, routines, and operations and therefore affect a greater
number of employees (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013), which has key implications for employee CSR
engagement. However, institutional arrangements within organisations can challenge CSR
progress. Indeed, research indicates that while organisations understand the importance of
embedding CSR, they struggle with its implementation; “the common overriding challenge
described by all participants was that of embedding sustainability – planting sustainability roots
deeply into the business” (McEwen & Schmidt, 2007, p.28).
In addition to implications for employees, the taxonomy of CSR also informs its measurement.
For example, if CSR is embedded and thus part of the daily operations and working life of
employees, it inherently requires an individual level of analysis (Aguinis & Glavas, 2013). It thus
becomes critical to measure employee perceptions of CSR in order to then measure the impact
of these perceptions (Glavas, 2016). In response, scales for measuring stakeholder, substantive,
and embedded CSR have been postulated within the literature (Glavas & Kelley, 2014; El Akremi
et al., 2015).
2.6. The Business Case for Corporate Social ResponsibilityThe business case for corporate social responsibility plays a central role in understanding
employee CSR engagement. Firstly, organisational motives for CSR, whether altruistic or
strategic, ultimately influence the ways in which CSR materialises within the organisation,
including the type of CSR intervention adopted, the relevance of which is outlined in Section 3.5,
as well as the level of financial and managerial support. Secondly, organisational motives are
linked to employee attributions of CSR, which affect benefits amassed by the individual, as well
as the organisation (Donia et al., 2016). Consequently, with employee perceptions of
organisational motives for CSR able to affect employee CSR engagement, it is important to
examine the range of motives driving organisations to pursue in corporate social responsibility.
The business case for CSR is primarily concerned with the tangible organisational benefits
received from engaging in corporate social responsibility practises. As Carroll and Shabana
(2010) suggest business concerns are mainly centred on the bottom-line and financial
justification in pursuing CSR. However, Vogel (2005) contends that improving the bottom line is
not the only motivation for CSR, with some executives demonstrating genuine care about
33
increased environmentally, culturally and economically sustainable business practises. Indeed,
in order to successfully adopt socially responsible behaviour Fisher (2003) stresses that a deep
approach to ethics is necessary. She distinguishes between two different approaches to ethics, a
surface and deep approach, which are based on an organisation’s leader’s motivation for ethical
concern. A surface approach results from self-interest, whereas a deep approach is motivated by
the desire to do the right thing. A surface approach to ethics is argued to be unsupportive of
ethical endeavours while a deep approach is able to support ethical activities (Hall & Brown,
2006). This is because organisations whose ethical behaviour is driven by self-interest can be
contradictory in their behaviour since there is no guarantee that ethical considerations will
supersede self-interest (Fisher, 2003). In addition, Fisher (2003) contends that businesses
whose management commit to acting ethically simply because they wish to do the right thing
have the potential to positively influence the ethical behaviour of their workforce, customers
and community.
However, while some managers are more public-spirited, adopting a deep approach to socially
responsible behaviour, for the majority of firms the main focus of corporate social responsibility
is as a source of competitive advantage (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006). As suggested by Baron
(2001) CSR has a direct and strategic effect on firms, altering the competitive position of
businesses within an industry. Competitive advantage is derived through CSR via a number of
direct and indirect potential benefits (Stabler & Goodall, 1997). Direct benefits to socially
responsible firms might include increased financial performance (Orlitzky, 2005; Smith, 2003)
through improved share price and market value (Mackey, Mackey, & Barney, 2007). Indirect
benefits include improved firm reputation and image (Fombrun, Gardberg, & Barnett, 2000),
which subsequently increases a firm’s ability to avoided consumer boycotts and overall ability
to retain committed employees and loyal customers (Bramwell & Altorp, 2001; Stabler &
Goodall, 1997; Vogel, 2005). The benefits of CSR have also been related to enhanced
recruitment, morale, productivity and retention (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; Marin & Ruiz,
2007; Turker, 2009a; Turker, 2009b). Furthermore, Vogel (2005) argues that firms that are
unable or unwilling to recognise this new competitive reality will find themselves
disadvantaged in the marketplace, suggesting that both "responsible" and "sophisticated"
investors will regard shares in these organisations as too risky, the value of their brands and
thus their sales will decline as a result of media exposure, public protests, and boycotts, and the
morale of employees will suffer. In addition, as suggested by Mackey et al., (2007) there is
reason to believe that at least some current investors are willing to sacrifice wealth-maximising
interests to invest in firms pursuing socially responsible activities.
34
In contrast, reviews such as that by Salzmann et al. (2005), suggest that thus far theoretical
frameworks and instrumental studies fail to provide convincing evidence supporting the
business case for corporate social responsibility. They suggest that the business case for social
responsibility is characterised by the complexity and materiality of sustainability. Given its
contingency on a number of parameters, as well as its diverse and undefined interpretation,
corporate social responsibility is extremely complex. Furthermore, the economic value of
sustainable business strategies remains elusive since it often only materialises in the long term
(Burke & Logsdon, 1996). In addition, Salzmann et al. (2005) contend that indirect effects on
intangible assets such as brand value or employee loyalty are difficult to monitor and measure.
However, Vogel (2005) argues that it is possible for a firm to commit resources to CSR without
becoming less competitive, meaning that while the market for virtue is not sufficiently
important to make it in the interest of all firms to behave more responsibly, there is indeed a
place in the business system for responsible firms.
2.7. Opportunities and Barriers for CSRCorporate social responsibility is driven by a number of external and internal factors, ranging
from NGO pressure (Aguilera, et al., 2007) to the altruistic concerns of top management (Vogel,
2005). However, in Whitehouse’s (2006) research a universal concern amongst respondents
was the desire to preserve or improve firm reputation. This coupling of reputation and CSR can
be attributed to a number of factors, including perceived change in social expectations
regarding the role of companies within society (Carroll, 1979) and subsequent trends in
consumer purchasing behaviour with ethical products growing in popularity (Co-Operative
Bank, 2011). Furthermore, reputation resulting from CSR has been seen to positively influence
investor interest and bolster public image (Altman & Vidaver-Cohen, 2000; Treviño & Nelson,
2004; Wymer & Samu, 2003; Vogel, 2005). It is therefore no surprise that reputation as a driver
for CSR is not uncommon in the literature with many in agreement that the desire to improve or
protect firm reputation is a key driver for CSR behaviour (Eden, 1996; Kasim, ,2007).
Eden (1996) suggests that additional conditions driving responsible behaviour include the
opportunity to gain a strategic advantage; the threat of sanctions; and increased organisational
legitimacy in the eyes of consumers, the public and regulatory bodies. Rowe (2006) takes a
similar, if slightly broader approach, proposing that CSR is driven by the “the three R’s” of risk,
relationships and reputation”. Kasim (2007) is increasingly comprehensive, suggesting that
drivers be examined more broadly through endogenous and exogenous pressures for
responsible behaviour.
35
Endogenous drivers manifest in a number of different forms, with the actions of top
management argued to be particularly influential (Fisher, 2003; Kasim, 2007). Kasim (2007)
contends that this is a result of the financial and human resources that generally accompany
demands from high up within an organisation. Since an organisation’s leader influences the
ethical behaviour of the firm (Fisher, 2003) understanding the ethical stance of top
management is necessary in order to recognise perceived opportunities for and barriers to
responsible behaviour. Alternatively, exogenous drivers include both regulatory and non-
regulatory instruments. Those that are regulatory include threats of new regulations,
government supervision and government incentive for voluntary initiatives (Kasim, 2007). Non-
regulatory mechanisms consist of trade association memberships and public pressure (ibid). In
addition, external drivers for CSR include consumers themselves, whom McWilliams and Siegel
(2001) suggest are one of the main sources of demand for corporate social responsibility. As a
result, a growing number of companies have incorporated CSR into their marketing strategies in
an effort to exploit the appeal of CSR to key segments of the market, particularly baby boomers
and generation X shoppers (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). However, while management can more
easily calculates the cost of providing CSR to consumers, evaluating consumer demand may not
be as straightforward. Consumer demand for CSR can be difficult to measure because CSR
attributes are incorporated amongst many attributes of a product, making it difficult to
distinguish which attributes of a product played an active role in the customer’s purchasing
decision (McWilliams, et al., 2006).
Nevertheless, while difficult to measure, growing evidence of an ethically conscious consumer
base can still be found. For example, in the UK sales patterns reflect a trend towards ethical
consumerism with ethical sales rising 8% (Co-Operative Bank, 2015). In the United States, sales
of organic non-foods increased 11% and food-product sales increased 9.5% from 2010-2011,
making up nearly 5% of total food and beverage sales (Huntrods, 2013). Indeed eco-labels,
voluntary identifiers such as Organic or Fair Trade that represent ecological or ethical criteria,
are increasingly found in large-scale mainstream outlets including Wal-Mart and McDonalds
(Howard & Allen, 2010). These changes provide evidence of growing ethical consumerism and
can demonstrate the importance of CSR interventions in business success.
A further opportunity and challenge for CSR involves another key stakeholder, and the focus of
this thesis: employees. As internal stakeholders, employees provide a valuable opportunity for
corporate social responsibility adoption and dissemination (Inyang, Awa, & Enuoh, 2011). While
the role of employees in driving CSR is discussed in more depth in Chapter 3, it is worth noting
here due to the critical role of employees in either supporting or inhibiting organisational CSR.
Firstly, employees may be responsible for initiating CSR within the organisation with some CSR
36
interventions driven from the bottom-up (Sharp & Zaidman, 2009). Employee demand for pro-
sustainable behaviour change within organisation thus has key implications for human resource
management and employer branding. Indeed, for some organisations CSR has become a tool by
which to attract job seekers (Jones et al., 2014) and as is evidenced by the literature, can help to
attract and retain high quality employees (App, Merk, & Buttgen, 2012; Dogl & Holtbrugge,
2014; Greening & Turban, 2000; Omran & Ramdhony, 2015). Secondly, employees are
responsible for disseminating CSR in the daily working life of the organisation (Collier &
Esteban, 2007). As Strandberg (2009) contends “it is through employee actions and decision-
making that many CSR strategies come to life”. As a result, depending on an employee’s
perceptions of and understanding and engagement with CSR, these individuals can provide
either an opportunity or barrier for CSR dissemination. Consequently, in addition to
organisational motives influencing the development of CSR within the organisation,
organisational motives may indeed influence employee attributions of, and subsequent
engagement in, corporate social responsibility. The potential conflict of interests between
organisational leaders and this key stakeholder group is addressed is Section 8.2.
2.8. CSR in Tourism and HospitalityBoth academic and industry focus on CSR in tourism has rapidly evolved over the last few
decades as a consequence of growing concern for the negative impacts of tourism on the natural
and socio-cultural environment (Dodds & Joppe, 2005; van de Mosselaer, et al., 2012). Much of
the emerging research has focused on the effect of CSR on firm performance (Lee & Park, 2009;
Kang, et al., 2010) with those such as Inoue and Lee (2011) suggesting that if CSR does not
enhance a firm’s bottom line, CSR investments may not be considered sustainable in the long
term. However, interest in CSR must expand beyond the bottom line due to the unique nature of
the tourism industry, which depends on the natural and cultural environment for its survival
(Walle, 1995). As an industry that is completely reliant on the natural and social environment
for its success, the unique nature of tourism and hospitality make sustainability a defining issue
for the industry (Jones et al., 2014a).
Given the gross economic benefits of tourism, policies are continually created to support its
development around the world. However, rapid expansion of the industry has had many
negative consequences, including damage to the natural environment, communities, cultures
and societies upon which tourism relies (Budeanu, 2005). As a result, given the forecasted
growth for the industry, Budeanu (2005, p. 3) contends that in order to avoid the risk of “too
much tourism killing tourism”, the industry requires the urgent integration of preventative
approaches into tourism strategies, development, and actions at all levels of governance and
organisation. The adoption of sustainability and CSR has therefore been proposed as the way
37
forward for the protection of the natural and built environment affected by tourism (Dodds &
Joppe, 2005).
In addition to concern with protecting the tourism product itself, factors such as ethics,
sustainability and human rights have also begun to play a role in consumer choice (Yeoman, et
al., 2006). Industry statistics provide evidence of a growing population of ethically minded
tourists with research by The Travel Foundation and Forum for the Future (2012) finding that
75% of consumers want a more responsible holiday. A 2012 study conducted by TripAdvisor
also found increasing tendencies towards sustainability with 71% of respondents wanting to
make more environmentally friendly choices when travelling. In addition, there appears to be
an obvious shift towards more engaged behaviour whilst travelling (King, 2002). As a result,
tourism organisations must now satisfy more social-conscious travellers who are concerned
with issues of CSR, adopting socially responsible behaviour in response to consumer demand.
However, while there is at least to some extent, consumer interest in corporate responsibility,
studies have also revealed a gap between customers’ perceptions and attitudes towards CSR
and their actual purchasing behaviour (Boulstridge & Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan & Attalla, 2001;
Cohen, et al., 2011). Indeed, as Shaw et al., (2016) contend, “‘caring about’ does not necessarily
lead to ‘care giving’”. The relationship between consumer attitudes towards CSR and purchasing
behaviour are multifaceted, contingent on product quality, a company’s motivation, and
consumers’ characteristics (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001).
Nevertheless, despite inconsistencies in consumer behaviour, the unique characteristics of the
hospitality and tourism industry may ultimately influence the type and degree of corporate
social responsibility pursued by organisations (see also Section 3.2.). The subsequent
examination of corporate social responsibility in both hospitality and tourism therefore serves
to illustrate the role and importance of CSR within H&T organisations. It reflects on
organisational dependence on the natural and socio-economic environment, ownership of
resources, industry criticisms, labour market, and consumer demand, and the ways in which
these industry factors may influence the development and adoption of corporate social
responsibility interventions.
2.8.1. CSR in the Tour Operator IndustryTo date, studies of CSR in tourism have largely focused on hotels rather than tour operators
(Dodds & Kuehnel, 2010; Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008; Kang, et al., 2010; Lee & Park, 2009) .
Those studies that have focused on tour operators have examined the destinations in which
tours operate, as opposed to tour operators’ actual participation in sustainability practises
38
(Dodds & Kuehnel, 2010). As suggested by Sheldon and Park’s (2010) research on CSR in the
U.S. travel industry, little is known about how industry members perceive CSR and actually
integrate responsible behaviour into business operations and management.
In the past, tour operators have often neglected environmental and social responsibilities
(Khairat & Maher, 2012). Despite being intermediaries between customers and service
providers, some operators argue that it is the responsibility of sub-contracted suppliers and
local authorities to monitor destination impacts (Budeanu, 2000; Forsyth, 1997; Khairat &
Maher, 2012). Ashworth and Goodall (1990) suggest that the lack of responsibility adopted by
tour operators may be attributable to a lack of ownership over resources. In addition, the tour
operator industry is highly competitive and as a result there exists limited pricing freedom and
low customer loyalty (Miller, 2001). Consequently, while operators are increasingly mindful of
the importance of CSR in tourism, the need to remain competitive and profitable often takes
priority over responsible behaviour (Dodds & Kuehnel, 2010). This suggests that in terms of
CSR taxonomy, tourism organisations may prioritise shareholder concerns over those of other
stakeholders.
Nevertheless, Holcomb et al. (2007), contend that a single tour operator is able to encourage
greater levels of action by setting terms for the social relations of doing business. Specifically,
due to their economic power, large-scale tour operators are in an ideal position to facilitate pro-
sustainable behaviour change throughout the industry (Font, et al., 2008; Tepelus, 2005; Van
Wijk & Persoon, 2006). Indeed, as demonstrated by the case study organisations examined in
this study, organisations are able to place pressure on other organisations within the industry
to adopt pro-sustainable behaviour. Sigala (2008) argues that tour operators play significant
roles in changing behaviours and attitudes towards more responsible forms of tourism because
they are able to impact the volume and direction of tourism flows; influence the attitudes and
practises of tourism suppliers and stakeholders; and contribute to the shaping destinations and
local communities. Furthermore, disregarding social and environmental responsibilities is at
odds with the tourism industry whose success relies on the human actors and natural
surroundings in which the tourism product unfolds (Hall & Brown, 2006). Environmental and
social concerns cannot be overlooked, as these elements are fundamental to the sustained
success of the industry (Fennell, 2006). As a result, tour operators and destinations are
increasingly recognising the negative impacts tourism can inflict on their tourism product and
are subsequently becoming aware that the very resources attracting tourists must be protected
to ensure long term sustainability (Budeanu, 2005; Swarbrooke, 1999).
39
In addition, like firms in other industries, tour operators face growing public interest in
corporate social responsibility issues (Van Wijk & Persoon, 2006). This awareness is expressed
in the growing demand for more environmentally and culturally sensitive holiday experiences
(Khairat & Maher, 2012). Indeed, a growing number of tourists expect sustainability
consideration to be integrated into their holidays, meaning that tour operators must operate
sustainability to remain competitive (Font & Cochrane, 2005). Furthermore, due to growing
public interest, corporate social responsibility initiatives are increasingly recognised as a means
of developing a positive reputation (Lii & Lee, 2012; Nan & Heo, 2007). As Dodds and Joppe
(2005) suggest, maintaining a good image and reputation is crucial for tourism businesses.
Communicating CSR efforts can help tourism organisations to combat negative perceptions of
both the industry and the brand.
Some tour operators are committing themselves to concepts of sustainability by integrating CSR
into business activities and organisational values and missions (Mason, 2010; Tour Operators
Initiative, 2005). According to TOI (2005), the key areas where tour operators can integrate
sustainability practises include: internal management; product development; supply chain
management; customer relations; and co-operation with destination. Of particular interest for
this research is internal management, which includes all of the operations and activities that
occur at the firm’s headquarters and in its country offices (ibid). Internal management of
sustainability practises address issues of employment, including employee engagement,
expectations, and empowerment, which are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.
Furthermore, Khairat and Maher (2012) suggest that a tour operator’s daily administrative and
operational activities have the potential to cause a wide range of environmental impacts. For
example, implementing practises to reduce resource consumption, including paper, energy,
water and office supplies can directly reduce the negative impact of business operations and can
cut costs as a result of more efficient resource use. Thus, it is unsurprising that questions remain
surrounding employee engagement and the role of employees in CSR.
2.8.2. CSR in the Hospitality IndustryCSR has been more extensively studied some areas of than others. In particular, a greater focus
has been given to the hospitality industry (see, for example, Bohdanowicz, 2007; Bohdanowicz
& Zientara, 2008; Lee & Park, 2009; Kang, et al., 2010). In part, this may be attributed to the
recognised impact of the hospitality industry on the natural and built environment; hotels
produce a relatively high level of pollution with their consumption of raw materials, generation
of waste, and high emissions. According to a 2005 report of the World Tourism Organisation
(UNWTO) Department of Statistics and Economic Measurement of Tourism, tourism
40
contributed to 5% of global C02 emissions, 75% of which were created by accommodation,
transportation and other activities.
As a result, CSR and its influence on different hotel operations is increasingly studied and
explored (Lee & Heo, 2009; Lee & Park, 2009; Kucukusta, et al., 2013; McGehee, et al., 2009;
Tsai, et al., 2012). In addition to growing research interest, practise of CSR with hospitality has
also increased (Sunpanti, et al., 2015). With high energy costs, public scrutiny, and regulatory
constraints, hotels have turned to CSR to improve reputation, cut costs, and gain a competitive
advantage in the industry (Sloan, et al., 2013). Led by international hotel chains, many
hospitality organisations were the first to spearhead CSR policies within the industry (Kasim,
2004). The last two decades have seen the implementation of various CSR programmes
including “Omtanke” at Scandic, “Embrace” by Shangri-La, and “Shelter in the Storm” by IHG.
However, despite strides towards pro-sustainable behaviour change, research by Dodds and
Kuehnel (2010) suggests that tourism and hospitality organisations find the need to remain
competitive and profitable often takes priority over CSR concerns. Indeed, Jones et al. (2014)
describe global hospitality firms as “weak” in their positioning on CSR. This is attributable to
structural arrangements within the hospitality industry and a tension between opposing ideas,
such as cost reduction and guest satisfaction (ibid). Even for those firms actively engaged in
CSR, there are constraints on their actions (Bertels & Peloza, 2008). Furthermore, Holcomb et al.
(2007) stated that while 80% of surveyed firms reported some level of socially responsible
activity, this is an overstatement of hotels’ proactivity in CSR. Consequently, firm rhetoric often
does not match firm action (Jones, et al., 2014). Conducting research at the individual level
therefore provides an opportunity to examine employee’s actual experiences with corporate
responsibility against the stated CSR agenda of the firm and the subsequent affect this has on
employee CSR engagement.
2.9. ConclusionIt is clear that even decades on from its inception, CSR remains plagued by a plethora of
competing and contested definitions. However, by setting clear parameters for corporate social
responsibility, justification and rational are provided for the prioritization of key elements of
CSR as it is applied in this research. In particular, the role and importance of stakeholders is
identified. Analysing research findings through the lens of stakeholder theory subsequently
enables this research to examine differences amongst employees in relation to CSR
understanding and engagement, as well as to address an overemphasis on stakeholder roles,
rather than relationships (McVea and Freeman, 2005).
41
In order to understand corporate social responsibility in research and practice, a number of
theories and taxonomies of CSR have been put forward. Amongst these, economic, political,
integrative, and ethical theories are proposed. Reviewing a range of corporate responsibility
theories demonstrates a tendency within the literature to study CSR from the macro level and
highlights a key contribution of this thesis as addressing the individual level of analysis.
Integrative and ethical theories are identified as being of particular value to this thesis due to
their focus on stakeholder involvement.
Various aspects of the CSR taxonomy are also presented, including peripheral versus embedded
CSR, symbolic and substantive CSR, and sustainable value. Each has unique implications for
employee CSR perceptions and response and subsequently have implications for employee CSR
engagement. Playing an equally as important role in organisational and employee engagement
in corporate responsibility are the identified opportunities and barriers to responsible
behaviour. Corporate social responsibility is generally agreed to contribute to an organisation’s
competitive advantage through reputation enhancement, risk management, and enhanced
recruitment, morale, productivity and retention. Nevertheless, arguments remain that criticise
CSR and its role in business.
Nevertheless, organisations are increasingly engaging in CSR with corporate social
responsibility policies being integrated into business operations, strategy, and management.
Opportunities and barriers to CSR arise both internally and externally, including leadership
values, strategic advantage, consumer demand, and employee engagement. Critically, due to the
unique nature of the hospitality and tourism industry, organisations in this sector may face
additional challenges in relation to the tourism product, stakeholder management, and industry
development.
42
Chapter 3: CSR and the Business Organisation
3.1. IntroductionThis chapter examines the organisational context and the relationship between organisational
factors and the individual employee. While there are multiple influencers of behaviour, the
human sciences tend to anchor behaviour within the individual (Korte, 2007). From this
perspective, the individual negotiates his or her own performance and is subsequently a key
driver of organizational performance (Swanson and Holton, 2001). Thus, with an aim to study
employee CSR engagement from the individual level, social identity theory bridges the
individual and organisational context, providing a useful lens through which to examine the
organisational phenomenon of CSR engagement. A discussion of identity and the importance of
the multiplicity of identity thus form the start of Chapter 3.
Following a review of social identity theory literature, this chapter goes on to review key
elements of corporate social responsibility and the organisation, including the multinational
context, organisational culture, types of CSR interventions, and corporate responsibility
leadership. Drawing on identity theory, attentions is given to how these overarching elements of
the organisation impact and are impacted by employees.
Focus then shifts to examine the psychological foundations of CSR that are influenced by the
organisational context. Drawing on existing literature from industrial-organisational
psychology, an overview of psychological mechanisms underlying the effect of CSR on
individuals is provided. While social identity theory has emerged at the forefront of this
discussion, additional relevant theories that influence employee CSR engagement are presented.
This is supplemented by an overview of the emerging field of micro-CSR, which focuses
explicitly on how corporate social responsibility affects individuals. This is a critical area of
understanding given both the research topic and central role played by employees in employing
responsible behaviour in the daily working life of the organisation.
3.2. Social Identity TheoryAs suggested by Korte (2007), the seemingly simple question of why people do the things they
do is, in reality, quite complex. One approach to this question may be in the assumption that
individuals do what they do because of who they believe themselves to be, or their identity
(ibid). Indeed, social identity theory (SIT) is frequently used to explain how individuals
conceive of themselves, how they identify with and form commitment to particular groups,
and their behaviour, particularly in relation to other groups (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), and thus
may provide a valuable lens by which to explore employee CSR engagement.
43
Social identity is defined as “part of the individuals’ self-concept that derives from their
knowledge of their membership of social group (or groups) together with the value and
emotional significance of that membership” (Tajfel, 1982, p. 24). Individual identities and sense
of self are therefore partly derived from social categories or groups in which people feel they
belong (e.g. nationality, political affiliation, organisational membership, etc.). It is therefore
argued that the defining characteristics of a group become the defining characteristics of it’s
members and thus, part of individual’s self-concepts (Tajfel, 1982; Turner et al., 1994; Hogg et
al., 1995; Hogg and Terry, 2012).
It is for this reason that identity is frequently used to examine the workplace with organisations
forming an important group for individual identity. It offers alternative perspectives and
solutions for various organisational challenges and phenomena (Dutton et al., 2010) and has
been used to explore a number of organisational phenomena, including the relationship
between corporate social responsibility and employees’ attitudinal and behavioural reactions
(e.g. Collier and Esteban, 2007; Kim et al., 2010). Identity is consequently a useful tool in
bridging micro and macro levels of analysis, providing meaning at the individual, organisational,
and society level (Alvesson et al., 2008; Corley et al., 2006; Gioia et al., 2013).
With individuals deriving at least a portion of their social identity from the groups with which
they associate, research suggests that individuals are likely to gravitate towards organisations
whose values align with their own (Schneider, 1987). For example, as suggested by both Hogg
and Terry (2000) and Tajfel (1978), employees may derive sense of satisfaction, enhanced self-
esteem, and pride when their organisation develops a positive image in society by engaging in
corporate social responsibility activities. CSR consequently represents a clear way of expressing
pro-social values that the organisation can easily communicate to potential applicants.
It is therefore unsurprising that social identity theory is also widely applied to explain the
relationship between CSR and organisational identification. Previous studies have found a
positive relationship between CSR and organisational identification (see, for example, Brammer
et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2013). It has subsequently been suggested that employee–organisation
CSR congruence is highly akin to self-identification with the organisation (Singhapakdi, et al.,
2015). People who are actively involved in an organisation tend to identify more with their
organisation (Mael and Ashforth, 1992). However, not all employees identify with their
organisation. As is evidenced by the organisational culture literature (see Section 3.4),
employees may not all belong to a single, unified group that shares common values and
behaviours (Hofstede, 1998; Linnenluecke et al., 2007; Sackman, 1992). Furthermore, as
illustrated in Section 2.4.2, employees may belong to more than one stakeholder group and thus,
44
may draw various aspects of their identity from membership in any number of groups. There is
subsequently a need to examine the relationship between CSR, employees, and identity and in
what context organisational membership is not employees’ salient identity with the values and
significance of different memberships taking priority.
3.2.1. Multiplicity of IdentitiesIndividuals are comprised of multiple selves (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Hogg et al., 1995) and as
a result, may classify themselves based on a number of social identities, including those based
on age, gender, race, nationality, political affiliation, interests, and roles and positions in society
(Stryker and Burke, 2000). Nevertheless, when explaining the relationship between CSR and
identity, there is a tendency within the literature to focus on employees’ deriving social identity
based on the organisations that they work for (Samanta et al., 2013). However, social identifies
are not exclusive and multiple identities may be triggered, potentially representing divergent
role expectations (Stryker and Burke, 2000). For example, as illustrated by Crane and
Ruebottom (2012, p. 78), “stakeholder may have certain expectations as an employee of the
firm, but as a mother in the local community, she may have other values and interests that
influence how she affects and is affected by the firm; her identity as a mother may also affect
her expectations as an employee”. Furthermore, within the organisation itself, employees may
derive social identity from multiple functional and professional groups. There is therefore a
need to examine both the economic roles and social identities of employees simultaneously.
Social groups exist at multiple levels (e.g. societal, cultural, industrial, organizational, functional,
and professional), with organisations generally comprised of various interacting groups
(Hodgkinson, 2003; Hogg and Terry, 2000). The organisation can subsequently be understood
as a collection of groups within which individuals develop and sustain multiple, socially derived
identities. For most identity theorists, groups exhibit isomorphic characteristics of identity
across different levels, although the strength of specific identity is relative to the individual, the
group, and the context (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Turner et al., 1987).
This contributes to Crane and Ruebottom’s (2012, pp. 77) argument that “in order for firms to
effectively understand societal values and expectations, predict relevant social issues, manage
stakeholder relationships, and assess impacts on their constituencies, they need to
understand the identifications that drive constituency membership in more sophisticated
ways”. In response, this thesis extends current application of identity in research by applying
social identity theory in conjunction with stakeholder theory. Conceptualising employees based
on their values and interests in relation to corporate social responsibility produces a finer
grained understanding of employees as a stakeholder group. However, while giving voice to
45
multiple narratives is desirable (Humphreys and Brown, 2002), becoming fully immersed in
employees’ varied realities and feelings is likely unfeasible within the time and resource
constraints of this thesis. Instead, this study takes a more systematic approach for capturing the
perceptions of organisational members, collecting data through semi-structured interviews.
3.3. CSR in Multinational CorporationsThe challenge of multiple identities is further exacerbated in the multinational context where
organisations are tasked with developing and implementing policy and practice across borders
and cultures. Organizational leaders are faced with managing the complexity of multiple
identities, both towards the subsidiary and the multinational corporation (MNC), as well as
multiple individual identities (Vora et al., 2007). As suggested by Ashforth and Johnson (2001),
before individuals can act in any given organisational context, including in relation to CSR,
individuals must situate themselves. However, organisations, particularly large ones, are
complex phenomena and a given context may suggest multiple potential identities (ibid).
In addition, while well-established body of literature exists regarding the transfer of operating
practises across the subsidiaries of MNCs (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Prahalad & Doz, 1987), the
effectiveness of using established business logic, or any other approach, to manage the cross-
country transfer of corporate social responsibility interventions has not yet been thoroughly
studied (Barnett & Lee, 2012). What little research does exist, suggests that many of the factors
that determine success in the transfer of operational practises may differ substantially from CR
transfer (ibid). Specifically, the ambiguity of the CR initiative, the social competency of the
business unit transferring the CR initiative, and the active involvement of local stakeholders,
play significant roles in CR transfer success (ibid).
Concepts of collaboration and partnership are consistent with principles of sustainability in
which stakeholder management is critical to the successful planning and management of
sustainable interventions (Bramwell & Lane, 2000). Furthermore, communication plays a
critical role in integrated strategy, which is argued by Bondy and Starkey (2014) to be one of the
most successful and thus ideal strategies for MNCs. Indeed, a growing number of studies suggest
that MNCs are increasingly prone to create dialogue with stakeholders (Foster and Jonker,
2005), tailoring corporate responsibility initiatives to respond to the preferences of societal
stakeholders (Brammer and Millington, 2003). Critical to the success of CSR are employees,
“who carry the main burden of responsibility for implementing ethical corporate behaviour […
and] the achievement of those outcomes will largely depend on employee willingness to
collaborate” (Collier and Esteban, 2007, p. 19).
46
However, while employees across and throughout MNCs are responsible for adopting and
enacting pro-sustainable behaviour, the focus of this research is specifically on head office
employees. This is because head office employees are responsible for communicating
organisational values to stakeholders as well for as setting precedent for expected ethical
behaviour across the organisation. The headquarter/subsidiary relationship is central to the
CSR strategies of multinational corporations (Cruz & Pedrozo, 2009) and employees who
observe strongly encouraging signals on the part of their company are more likely to adopt a
pro-sustainable behaviour (Ramus & Steger, 2000). Consequently, understanding employee CSR
engagement with head office employees can contribute to the dissemination of CSR across the
organisation.
3.3.1. Cross Cultural Differences and CSROver the last decade, attention has been increasingly directed towards variances in attitudes
towards business ethics amongst countries (see, for example, Christie, et al., 2003; Palazzo,
2002; Smith & Hume, 2005; Tavakoli et al., 2003; Tsui & Windsor, 2001). Existing research
demonstrates a distinct difference in expectations and attitudes towards CSR between different
societies and cultures (Waldman, et al., 2006). As a result, in order to successfully embed CSR
across an organisation, attention must be drawn to different ethical philosophies, cultures and
beliefs (Smith & Hume, 2005). As suggested by Robertson and Fadil (Robertson & Fadil, 1998, p.
465) “if firms considered such factors as each host country’s culture and dominant ethical
philosophies, then better ethical decision making would result”.
Furthermore, while it is often environmental concerns driving sustainability, it is culture and
religion that tend to make up the foundation of business ethics and therefore influence levels of
acceptance and use of CSR (Sheldon & Park, 2010). However, as suggested by Sheldon and Park
(2010), cultures vary in their interpretation and adoption of CSR. Even within a single nation,
values may differ between groups (Specter & Solomon, 1990), particularly within a multiracial
country when groups maintain their ethnic identities (Sendhut, 1991). The same can be said
within organisations, with employees characterised by multiple cultures and ethnic identities.
The diversity of cultures and subsequent variances in attitudes towards CSR, further
emphasises the need to reflect on stakeholder heterogeneity.
Thorne and Saunders (2002) identify problems that might occur when transnational
organisations attempt to incorporate corporate sustainability systems into subsidiaries.
Importantly, they contend that culture has a pervasive influence on individual employee’s
ethical reasoning and suggest that it is neither favourable nor feasible for transnational
organisations to ignore the cultural dimensions of ethical reasoning due to the cultural diversity
in the workplace today. Furthermore, Helin and Sandström (2008) provide evidence of inertia
47
and resistance in the process of integrating systems over borders within a multinational
corporation. They suggest that this is due to the minimal attention given to the actual
individuals within the organisation who are expected to abide by these codes.
This thesis extends this argument to suggest that due to the cultural diversity found within
organisations today, it is possible that though Thorne and Saunder’s (2002) argument is
concerned with transnational firms, it can similarly be applied within a single portion of the
organisation if the workforce is both multiracial and multicultural. Subsequently,
acknowledging Helin and Sandström’s (2008) call for greater analysis of individual’s within the
organisation, there is a need for individual analysis, which can be addressed by the use of
stakeholder and identity theory.
However, despite the importance of individual employees in implementing and abiding by
business ethics, few studies address the implementation of responsible behaviour in practise
(Clegg et al., 2007). Moreover, existing studies within the literature tend to focus on
organisational texts and formal documentation (Kaptein, 2004). When people are involved, it is
often the views and voices of sustainability managers or top management which are discussed
and while important, these individuals represent a minority of those targeted by codes of ethics
(Helin & Sandström, 2008). Learning about sustainability is a companywide necessity and
should therefore address employees across a wide range of offices and departments, rather than
being restricted to the discourse of leaders and top management (Haugh & Talwar, 2010).
3.4. Organisational CultureOrganisational culture is a frequent topic of discussion within the corporate sustainability
literature (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010; Stead & Stead, 1992; Welford, 1995) with the central idea
being that organisations moving towards sustainability will display a ‘greener’ and more
socially responsible culture (Crane, 1995). It is implicit in this belief that organisations are able
to present a unified ‘sustainable’ corporate culture that is the outcome of effective managerial
regulation (Crane, 1995; Harris & Crane, 2002). Conversely, instead of sustainable corporate
culture emerging as a by-product of responsible behaviour, those such as Post and Altman
(1994) and Welford (1995) argue that cultural changes are first necessary in order to respond
to environmental and social challenges. Linnenluecke et al., (2007) therefore suggest that
culture is a useful tool by which to support a wider and more cohesive shift towards the
implementation of responsible behaviour.
Though organisational culture has become a popular avenue from which to explore
sustainability, there exists little theoretical underpinning on what actually constitutes a
sustainability-oriented organisational culture (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). Nevertheless,
48
despite these gaps in knowledge, Zammuto and Krakower (1991) argue that there is a link
between understanding of corporate social responsibility and organisational culture. It is
evident that outside of traditional practises such as training days (Armstrong & Sadler-Smith,
2008), learning also emerges from everyday experiences and social interactions in the
workplace. In this way, learning can be generated by organisational practises and can be rooted
in organisational culture (Lave & Wenger, 1991), with organisational culture therefore
providing a platform from which to more fully examine and encourage responsible business
practises. The benefit of this, as outlined by Singhapakdi and Vitell (2007, p. 291), is that
“institutionalising ethics is analogous to creating a ‘good barrel’ because most people are often
swayed by the corporate culture surrounding them”. This argument is consistent with findings
by Haugh and Talwar (2010), which demonstrate that in order to become fully integrated into
the organisation employees often align their behaviour with what is important to other
members of the organisation.
It is therefore unsurprising that organisational culture is often associated with collections of
values, beliefs, and traditions. Indeed, Huczynski and Buchanan (2007) define organisational
culture as:
The collection of relatively uniform and enduring values, beliefs, customs, traditions and
practises that are shared by an organisation’s members, learned by new recruits and
transmitted from one generation of employee to the next.
These interpretations of organisational culture imply that it is a bottom-up driven process, with
organisations adopting the values of their employees. However, this is in conflict with Crane
(1995) and Harris and Crane’s (2002) suggestion that sustainable organisational culture is a
reflection of effective managerial regulation, which implies top-down intervention. This raises
the questions surrounding the development of sustainability-focused organisational cultures
and if culture driven by managerial values versus those of employee, influences employee CSR
engagement.
3.4.1. Organisational SubculturesOrganisational culture is often focuses on shared or common values and behaviours amongst
employees; however, not all researchers agree that employees belong to the same, unified
organisational culture (Hofstede, 1998; Linnenluecke et al., 2007; Sackman, 1992). The
literature frequently refers to the “culture of the organisation”, as if the organisation is a closed
and homogenous entity with a superordinate culture that dictates the attitudes and behaviours
of individuals within the firm. In this interpretation of the term, it is implicit that organisational
culture does not depend on employees, but is pre-existing and imposed on them.
49
As a result, the single culture perspective typical considers corporate leaders as the main
sources and shapers of culture in an organisation. However, though they play an important role
in developing and driving official corporate policies, structures, and control and reward
mechanisms, the assumption that top management team values and norms can be applied
across the whole organisation is “probably excessive and possible fallacious” (Irrmann, 2002, p.
4). Due to the diverse range of interests and values of employees within a firm, there can be
considerable discrepancy between claimed organisational culture promoted by top
management and the sub-cultures and identities that coexist within the firm. As a result,
consistent with growing acknowledgement of heterogeneity within stakeholder groups, Riley
(1983) suggests:
[Studies] of culture most often portray organisational systems . . . as working together in a
shared and cohesive way. The theoretical position expressed in this paper develops an
alternative stance – a perspective of organisational cultures that expects organisations to
have subcultures and allows for rival images and competing systems of meanings.
The relationship between cultural fragmentation and corporate social responsibility is
particularly relevant to the tourism industry, with tourism organisations often operating across
borders and cultures. Unfortunately, few pieces of empirical research link cultural
fragmentation and CSR (Linnenluecke et al., 2007). Two notable exceptions, however, include
Howard-Grenville (2006) and Harris and Crane (2002), whom demonstrate that the adoption of
a ‘sustainable’ culture is impeded by organisational subcultures, which inhibit the dissemination
of consistent and shared sustainability values and beliefs. With corporate social responsibility
identified as a driver of employee engagement (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2007), sub cultures
within an organisation will subsequently have key implications for the adoption and
dissemination of CSR policy and practice.
A number of studies within the literature confirm the existence of subcultures, which frequently
form around hierarchical levels (Riley, 1983); organisational roles (Hofstede, 1998; Schein,
1996); functional or professional identifications (Sackman, 1992); or personal networks and
individual differences, such as ethnicity and gender (Martin, 2002). Researchers have found that
subcultures also form when there is a mutual understanding of tasks, mission and roles (Jermier
et al., 1991) and are able to cut across organisations (Gregory, 1983). As a result, a variety of
organisational culture types may form within the same organisation. Understanding and
identifying organisational culture types is therefore critical to the success of pro-sustainable
behaviour change as these culture types influence how employees understand and enact
corporate sustainability (Linnenluecke et al., 2007).
50
Furthermore, the possible dividing points for organisational sub culture are also influential in
identity formation, with individuals classifying themselves based on a number of social
identities (e.g. gender, role, position). Therefore, as Ashforth and Mael (1989) contend, given
that individuals often have multiple, often conflicting, identities within the organization,
research should focus on salient subgroups in addition to the organization itself. Thus, insofar
as identification facilitates engagement, there is merit in investigating engagement itself at the
subgroup level.
3.5. Type of CSR InterventionWithin organisations, CSR policy and practise can take a variety of forms. For example,
corporate social responsibility efforts can be external (directed towards external stakeholders)
or internal (directed towards employees) (Hameed et al., 2016), and can range from community
involvement, employee support, environmental initiatives, and sustainable supply chain
management. Within the literature, a number of factors have been identified as having bearing
on the type and intensity of an organisation’s CSR efforts, including organisation size, level of
competition, resources, degree of product differentiation, and consumer support (Bhattacharya,
and Sen, 2004; Sweeney, 2007).
Notably, the amount of criticism faced by the industry is shown to influence the type and degree
of organisational engagement with CSR. Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) suggest that certain
industries, such as oil, are more vulnerable to criticism due to the inherent nature of their
operations and thus may need to engage in higher levels of CSR in order to appease
stakeholders. The same argument could be applied to the hospitality and tourism industry,
which has been criticised for negative industry impacts on the natural and socio-cultural
environment (Dodds & Joppe, 2005; van de Mosselaer, et al., 2012), economic leakages
(Fennell, 2006), and issues with stakeholder engagement (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999). As a
result, industry can influence the type and intensity of CSR adopted by organisation and thus
may impact employee CSR engagement.
The type of CSR intervention adopted by an organisation has been shown to influence consumer
behaviour (Lii and Lee, 2012). For example, corporate social responsibility marketing, which
requires consumers to make a purchase and thus has clear benefits for the organisation,
received lower consumer evaluations compared to philanthropy and sponsorship, which do not
require the consumer to make an effort (ibid). It is therefore possible that type of CSR
intervention will similarly influence employee buy in and support. Yet, most organisations fail to
grasp the importance of different CSR approaches for different employees. Bhattacharya et al,
(2008) illustrate this point by describing an organisation’s support for dental health as part of
51
corporate philanthropy; an organisation could donate money to the American Dental
Association or engage in cause marketing (a percentage of toothpaste purchases goes to the
American Dental Association) or to corporate social marketing programmes that promote
behaviour change, such as clinics in inner cities to train children to have better dental health
practises. Different groups of employees will view these approaches in very different ways and
subsequently value them differently. With type of CSR intervention effecting employee
evaluations and perceptions, it becomes increasingly important to evaluate the ways in which
different CSR interventions impact employee engagement.
Furthermore, research suggests that the impact of CSR on employee outcomes is contingent on
employee orientation (e.g. Rupp et al., 2013a; 2013c; Bridoux et al., 2016). Researchers propose
that employees’ perception about CSR and its subsequent outcomes are sensitive to their calling
orientation (Glavas and Godwin, 2013). That is to say that CSR may vary in its salience to
employees because of different orientation towards work, with some employees viewing work
as merely a job (e.g. a means to a pay check) and others seeing it as part of an overarching
career and an expression of self-worth (e.g. promotion is important), whereas still others see
work as a calling or fulfilling a greater purpose, or some combination of all three orientations to
varying degrees (Wrzesniewski, 2003). Based on the range of importance that CSR can have to
employees, this suggests it is possible that the type of CSR intervention may influence
employees’ calling orientation. For example, the greater salience CSR has to an employees’
personal identity, congruence between intervention type and employee interest becomes less
imperative. Conversely, for employees for whom CSR is less prominent, the type of CSR
intervention becomes increasingly important.
Therefore, in order to better understand how different kinds of CSR influence employee CSR
engagement, this thesis differentiates between key forms of corporate social responsibility,
namely employee fundraising (EF) and employee volunteering (EV). These two specific types of
CSR were central to the CSR strategies of the case study organisations and were frequently the
subject of employee responses. As a result, the role and importance of different intervention
types informed data analysis, with consideration given to employee engagement in relation to
specific forms of corporate responsibility.
3.5.1. Employee FundraisingThe idea of “giving at the office” is not a new concept; however, recent decades have seen
corporate philanthropy grow into a multibillion-dollar enterprise. In the United States
corporate philanthropy increased from donations of $40 million in 1940 to $14.1 billion in 2009
(Giving USA, 2010). Similarly, workplace giving has grown in other countries (Romney-
Alexander, 2002) with more than £116 million raised in the UK in 2009 (Osili, et al., 2011).
52
Indeed, many firms operate workplace-giving campaigns that allow employees to make payroll
deduction contributions to charity (ibid). Research by The National Committee for Responsive
Philanthropy (2003) reported that 25% of Americans work in organisations with workplace
giving campaigns.
However, despite the proliferation of employee donations, within the general philanthropic
studies literature few studies have focused specifically on workplace giving (Agypt, et al., 2012;
Christensen, et al., 2016; Osili, et al., 2011). Perhaps this is because while charitable donations
can come from individuals, bequests, corporations, and charitable foundations, individual givers
comprise more than 75% of total gifts given annually (List, 2011). As a result, more general
charitable giving is well researched and, as evidenced by Bekkers and Wiepking’s (2011a)
review of more than 500 articles, an overwhelming body of knowledge is available on
philanthropy in the social sciences. However, the extant literature on employee charitable
giving appears largely concerned with employee giving in higher education (Agypt, et al., 2012;
Drezner, 2013; Knight, 2003) with a distinct lack of attention paid to employees in other
settings.
In addition to gaps in understanding in the literature, organisations may struggle to achieve
significant, lasting social impact (Bruch & Walter, 2005). Furthermore, in recent years,
corporate philanthropy processes have started to change (Breeze, 2013). Specifically,
philanthropy has undergone a marked increase in the involvement of employees who are
increasingly tasked with selecting charitable beneficiaries, whether through consulting
employees, establishing charity committees, or voting for beneficiaries (ibid).
However, organisations are challenged by the complexities of employee motivations for giving.
While some scholars have focused on the implications of giving campaigns on organisations,
little research has been conducted to better understand employee-level giving behaviours in
charitable workplace campaigns (Agypt, et al., 2012). Romney-Alexander (2002) suggests that
within the UK, tax benefits appear to be the most important motive for payroll giving.
Furthermore, a matching offer by one’s employer can also have a legitimising effect on
charitable giving (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011a); for example, when employers match employees’
charitable contributions, employees donate more (Okunade & Berl, 1997). However, research
suggests that individuals show preference to being asked to contribute by a friend or colleague
whereas being encouraged by an employer has a negative effect on contributions (Schervish &
Havens, 1997). More generally, in studies of charitable giving individuals are noted as donating
due to altruism or social pressure (Vigna, List, & Malmendier, 2009), for reputation
enhancement (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011a), and with differences in donor behaviour stemming
53
from individual characteristics and demographics such as age (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b),
gender and ethnicity (Kottasz, 2004; Leslie, Snyder, & Glomb, 2013), and income (Schervish &
Havens, 1995; Wilhelm, et al., 2006).
3.5.2. Employee Volunteering Employee volunteering (EV), also referred to as corporate volunteerism or employee
community involvement, is an example of one way in which organisations are actively engaging
employees in CSR activities (Caligiuri, et al., 2013). Networks such as Employees in the
Community Network (EitCN) and the Business in the Community (BITC) Care Programmeme
have subsequently emerged to support business-community partnerships and to share best
practises in EV (Muthuri, et al., 2009). Thus far, it has principally been larger organisations that
pursue employee-volunteering schemes with employee volunteering subsequently referred to
as corporate volunteering (Peloza & Hassay, 2006).
As outlined by Peloza and Hassay (2006), employee volunteering can be understood from three
different perspectives depending on the degree of employer involvement. Extra, inter and intra-
organisational volunteerism are largely distinguished by the capacity or role in which
employees commit their time as an afterhours or personal activity (extra-organisational
volunteerism); as part of a self-directed and employer-supported programme (inter-
organisational); or as part of an employer-sanctioned programme in support of an employer-
selected cause or charitable organisation (intra-organisational). Inter-organisational
volunteerism is therefore associated with employee volunteer initiatives that “are supported by,
but not strategically aligned with the firm and therefore, in this form of volunteerism the goals
and strategy of the corporation are secondary to the philanthropic interests of its employees”
(Peloza & Hassay, 2006, p. 359). In this type of inter-organisational volunteering, the employees
decide which charity to volunteer in while a company passively supports this effort. For
example, an organisation might encourage volunteer activities by giving the workers time off
without pay or accommodate volunteer efforts by adjusting work schedules (Basil, et al., 2009).
Alternatively, intra-organisational, or employer-sanctioned, volunteerism refers to company-
sanctioned employee volunteer programmes that more actively involve the organisation
(Peterson, 2004). The distinguishing characteristic of intra-organisational volunteerism is that a
firm decides what type of volunteer cause it wants to support, and it designates a charity
organisation to cooperate. Furthermore, the chosen volunteer programme is promoted among
the employees and the organisation may encourage participation in such activities during
working hours (Peloza & Hassay, 2006). Peloza et al. (2009) contend that in order to be
effective, volunteer initiatives should be strategically aligned with core competencies of the firm
and thus should be directed by the organisation. Aligning CSR efforts with core competencies is
54
consistent with strategic philanthropy in which organisations align philanthropic efforts with
the core competencies of companies, thus using the company’s unique abilities to benefit society
(Bruch & Walter, 2005). However, it is important to note that this form of employee
volunteering is less common than the inter-organisational volunteering initiated by employees,
as company supported volunteerism is a relatively new concept to be integrated into firms´ CSR
programmes (Basil, et al., 2009).
In contrast and far more common, is extra-organisational volunteerism which includes
volunteer work performed outside of work in an employee’s personal time, is not connected to
an employees’ role and, as a result, provides only minimal, indirect benefit to the firm (e.g.
employee skill development). Similarly to inter-organisational volunteers, extra-organisational
volunteers are likely to choose charities based on the employees’ experience and identification
with a particular organisation or cause (Peloza & Hassay, 2006). However, because the
individual’s employer does not support them, these charities generally receive no incremental
financial support from the extra-organisational volunteer efforts of employees.
Much of the existing employee volunteering research has been practitioner-oriented and linked
to human resource development strategy (Logan, 2002; Tuffrey, 1995, 2003) or to community
involvement and reputation building strategies (Thomas & Christoffer, 1999; Tuffrey, 1998;
Quirk, 1998). Attention has also been given to management volunteer recruitment practises
(Halley & Tuffrey, 1999; Peterson, 2004) and volunteer retention strategies. Business motives
for supporting employee volunteering programmemes have also been explored with corporate
volunteering recognised as benefiting organisations through improved risk management and
brand reputation (Basil, et al., 2009; Ellen, et al., 2000; Peterson, 2004), employee morale (De
Gilder, et al., 2005; Tuffrey, 1997), productivity (Geroy, et al., 2000) and recruiting efficiency
(Turban & Greening, 1997).
In addition to organisational motives, research has also focused on the motives driving
individual employees to participate in corporate volunteering. This literature has identified a
range of intrinsic motives (e.g. satisfying the desire to give something back to society) and
extrinsic motives (e.g. gaining experience to boost career progression) or differentiates between
egoistic and altruistic motives for employee participation (Peterson, 2004). Additional motives
include ‘doing good’, ‘cooperating with others’, ‘trusting’, or ‘networking’ (Muthuri, et al., 2009).
Although these motives resonate with Putnam’s (1995) account of social capital, the role of EV
in generating social capital is largely unexplored. Nevertheless, some researchers have begun to
explore the relationship between volunteering and the development of human and social capital
(Booth, et al., 2009; Muthuri, et al., 2009; Peterson, 2003). For example, the results of Peterson’s
55
(2003) survey indicated that employees perceive volunteerism as an effective means to develop
or enhance job-related skills including teamwork, leadership, communication, and project
management skills. Similarly, Muthuri et al,. (2009) argue that employee volunteering can
stimulate aspects of social capital, including social networks, trust, norms of cooperation, etc.
Notably, Caligiuri et al., (2013) suggest that corporate volunteering is linked to employee
engagement. This corporate volunteerism–engagement relationship might be caused by
volunteer opportunities enhancing volunteers’ positive identification with their employers
(Finkelstein, et al., 2005; Pajo & Lee, 2011) and connecting them with their employers in a more
positive way (Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korschum, 2008). Many people also experience an energy
producing “helper's high” during volunteerism activities as endorphins are released, resulting in
positive physical and emotional feelings (Post, 2005). Research in social psychology has found
that volunteers experience an increase in positive affect and attitudes as a function of engaging
in volunteerism (see for example, Snyder & Omoto, 2008). However, these positive affects
stemming from corporate volunteering are not identified as resulting from employee
fundraising, which suggests that if employee engagement is influenced by these positive
outcomes, employees CSR engagement may then be affected by intervention type.
3.6. CSR LeadershipIncreasing pressure on the tourism product, challenges faced by tourism development, and
growing stakeholder involvement, create a need for pro-sustainable behaviour change that
demands new forms of sustainably focused leadership. Such leadership plays a critical role in
employee engagement and support for organisational CSR. However, CSR leadership is not
without its challenges; in particular, generating support for social and environmental
programmes requires the buy in of various stakeholders, each of whom may hold different
personal and organisational priorities (Metcalf and Benn, 2013). Pulling together these different
forces therefore becomes critical to the success of organisational sustainability (Kakabadse &
Kakabadse, 1999). As suggested by Dillon (2015), organisational leaders play a key role in
influencing organisational identities, both in general and specifically in relation to
organisational members’ understanding of CSR. It is consequently unsurprising that leadership
is highlighted as a key driver for both employee engagement (Seijts & Crim, 2006; Shuck, 2011)
and corporate social responsibility (Knirsch, 2005; Metcalf & Benn, 2013). However, due to the
complex nature of sustainability itself, Metcalf and Benn (2013) contend that leadership for CSR
requires leaders of extraordinary abilities, meaning that these leaders must problem solve,
manage through complexity, and engage groups in dynamic and adaptive organisational change
(ibid).
56
Nevertheless, despite their importance, most CSR studies have disregarded the role of corporate
leaders in formulating and implementing CSR initiatives (Waldman & Siegel, 2008). As a result,
facilitating CSR practises is still very much a “black box” in the literature (Howard-Grenville,
2006; Linnenluecke, et al., 2007), leaving the influence of leadership and management style on
triggering or shaping corporate responses in this domain left largely unexplored (Metcalf &
Benn, 2013; Waldman, et al., 2006b). Limited attention has been given to the ways in which
leadership styles influence the effectiveness of CSR in generating positive organisational
outcomes (Du, et al., 2013) or how various leadership styles influence willingness to engage in
organisational CSR.
Despite having been linked to organisational outcomes, as noted by both Waldman et al.
(2006b) and Groves and La Rocca (2011), there exists a dearth of research exploring the
relationship between leadership style and CSR. Yet, strategic leadership theorists contend that
top managers are crucial to firm outcomes (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) because of the decisions
they are empowered to make and because “ultimately, they account for what happens to the
organisation” (Hambrick, 1989, p. 5). As a result, top management can act as a champion for
change by helping organisations to transition more smoothly and completely (Daily & Huang,
2001). A greater understanding is therefore required of leadership and it’s effect on corporate
social responsibility and, more specifically, on employee CSR engagement.
In contributing to the understanding of CSR leadership, it is important that a clear definition of
leadership is established. Much like corporate social responsibility, leadership is similarly
plagued with a plethora of contested definitions (Jackson, 2005). However, as this research
focuses on broadening the view of leadership taken within the literature, it has adopted Yukl’s
(2001) unifying premise that the only consistent definition of leadership is that of process of
influence. When defined as process of influence, leadership is broader than management and
thus may include informal or less formalised leaders, such as CSR champions.
3.6.1. Forms of LeadershipEmerging research on the role of leader values, ethics, and style in regards to CSR have resulted
in the identification of a number of leadership styles that are associated with corporate social
responsibility (see for example: Angus-Leppan, et al., 2010; Campbell, 2006; Waldman & Siegel,
2008). Forms of leadership influence one’s ability to direct other individuals within the
organisation and Metcalf and Benn (2013) subsequently argue that due to the complex and
dynamic nature organisational sustainability, leadership for sustainability will require leaders
with unique abilities. Bass (2005) identifies broad leadership styles, including transformational
leadership, where leaders are concerned with individual consideration and support for
employees, and transactional leadership, where leadership is based on transactions, or
57
exchanges, between leaders and employees. These leadership styles and their impact on
corporate social responsibility will now be addressed in turn.
Transactional LeadershipIt is well established that transactional leadership influences followers through behaviour
control, rewarding agreed-upon behaviours and eliminating performance problems by using
corrective transactions (Bass, 2000). Vera and Crossan (2004) contend that transactional
leaders are skilled at goal development, maintenance of current structures, and providing
timely feedback on performance. In part, this may be attributable to active management-by-
exception, one of the three main dimensions of transactional leadership, in which transactional
leaders specify standards for compliance and punishment for noncompliance, as well as what
constitutes ineffective performance. This leadership dimension emphasises close monitoring of
followers for any deviances, mistakes, and errors so that corrective action can be quickly taken
(Groves & La Rocca, 2011). Transactional leaders also give followers something they want in
exchange for something the leader wants (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). It is therefore suggested that
the contingent reward dimension of transactional leadership can be used to drive CSR, if leaders
articulate to followers how they will be rewarded for participation in CSR (Waldman, et al.,
2006b).
However, studies have shown transactional leaders to be viewed by employees as less satisfying
and effective leaders than transformational leaders (Bass, 1990) and thus the type of leadership
used to facilitate employee CSR engagement becomes increasingly important. In relation to CSR
and extra-role behaviour, employees are seen to exert additional effort on the behalf of
managers who engage in a transformational leadership style (ibid). As a result, organisations
whose leaders are transactional are arguably less effective than those who are transformational.
Nevertheless, there are arguments within the literature that suggest that transformational
leadership and transactional leadership are not opposing constructs and indeed that
transformational leadership complements transactional leadership (Bass, 1998; Bass, 1999;
Howell & Avolio, 1993). As Howell and Avolio (1993) contend, effective leaders often
supplement transactional leadership with transformational leadership.
Transformational LeadershipContrasting transactional leadership styles, transformational leaders influence followers by
developing and communicating a collective vision that inspires followers to look beyond self-
interest for the good of the team and organisation (Bass, 2008; Groves & La Rocca, 2011).
Research has linked transformational leadership to CEO success (Jung, Wu, & Chow, 2008),
middle management effectiveness (Singh & Krishnan, 2008), cross-cultural leadership
(Kirkman, et al., 2009), personality (Hautala, 2006; Judge & Bono, 2000), and emotional
58
intelligence (Mathew & Gupta, 2015). It is therefore no surprise that Diaz-Saenz (2011) argues
that transformational leadership has been “the single most studied and debated idea within the
field of leadership”.
Within the construct, four key components have emerged: idealised influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration. Within the literature,
idealised influence and inspirational motivation are often grouped together as charisma (Bass &
Riggio, 2006), which is characterised as a key component of this leadership style (Lowe, et al.,
1996; Waldman, et al., 2001). In their study of the key capabilities underpinning successful CSR
practise, Angus-Leppan and Benn (2007) found support for the literature that posits that
inspirational leadership is essential to successful CSR practise (see also: Waddock & Bodwell,
2007). Additionally, enthusiasm and optimism are considered key characteristics of
inspirational motivation (ibid). Waldman et al. (2006) also find aspects of transformational
leadership to be pertinent to CSR with components of transformational leadership, specifically
intellectual stimulation, predicting organisational CSR engagement. Research by Du et al. (2013)
further demonstrates that organisations with greater transformational leadership are more
likely to engage in institutional CSR practises, in contrast with transactional leadership, which is
not associated with such practises.
However, it is worth noting that these studies focus on the role of leadership in the
organisational adoption of pro-sustainable behaviour change, rather than employee
followership and employee engagement in CSR. As a result, while organisational level CSR
research has examined the role of leadership in organisational CSR engagement (Waldman, et
al., 2006b), there remains a gap in understanding from the individual level perspective
concerning the role of leadership in employee CSR engagement. Nevertheless, given the ability of
leadership to shape a number of other organisational outcomes such as organisational change
(Oreg & Berson, 2011) and organisational culture (Bertels & Peloza, 2008), it is highly likely that
leadership will play an equally as important role in CSR engagement at the individual level. As a
result, in order to understand CSR leadership, it is important to consider the individual level
perspective.
Authentic LeadershipWhile authentic leadership has been characterised by a plurality of definitions, the focus here is
on that provided by George (2008, p. 88), which argues:
Authentic leaders use their natural abilities, but they also recognise their shortcomings, and
work hard to overcome them. They lead with purpose, meaning, and values. They build
enduring relationships with people. Others follow them because they know where they stand.
59
They are consistent and self-disciplined. When their principles are tested, they refuse to
compromise. Authentic leaders are dedicated to developing themselves because they know that
becoming a leader takes a lifetime of personal growth.
This definition effectively captures popular conceptions that reflect many of the central
components of scholarly definitions. George (2008) identifies five key dimensions of authentic
leadership, including: pursuing purpose with passion; practicing solid values; leading with
heart; establishing enduring relationships; and demonstrating self-discipline. Despite using
different language, these components align with those discussed by Kernis (2003) and Kernis
and Goldman (2006). Furthermore, authentic leadership is seen to incorporate elements of both
transformational and ethical leadership (Avolio, et al., 2004)
Authenticity in leadership is described by George (2008) as being true to yourself and of being
the person that you are, rather than developing an image or persona of a leader. Avoilio et al.’s
(2004) model of authentic leadership behaviours and values include hope, trust, and positive
emotions. They suggest that through these demonstrated behaviours and values, followers are
able to identify with leaders on a personal and social level. However, both Lloyd-Walker and
Walker (2011) and Price (2003) caution against authentic leadership being seen as a model
where being true to oneself is sufficient, specifically because a leader’s view of what is just,
moral, and ethical is entirely subjective.
Due to the complexities, intricacies, and overlap between forms of leadership it becomes
increasingly important to examine the role of leadership style in corporate social responsibility.
Previous research has demonstrated associations between leadership and range of desirable
outcomes, such as performance, commitment, creativity, and wellbeing (Soane, 2014). It is
therefore reasonable to assume that leadership will have some level of influence on employee
CSR engagement; however, it remains unclear which forms of leadership will influence
employee engagement as well as employee disengagement.
3.6.2. Human Resource ManagementCSR is progressively being incorporated into the business models of organisations (Franklin,
2008) and has subsequently begun to function as a key principle determining organisational
methods of working. As a result, CSR increasingly influences decision-making processes and
underpins management practises. Jamali et al. (2015) suggests that this requires strengthening
the links between CSR and additional managerial functions. Given its commitment to human and
organisational development, there are important interfaces between CSR and human resource
management (HRM) (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008). Nevertheless, the specific contribution of
60
HR professionals and HRM practises to corporate social responsibility has been largely
overlooked (Gond, et al., 2011; Greenwood, 2013; Greenwood and Freeman, 2011).
Human resource management contributes significantly to the ways in which CSR is understood,
developed, and enacted (Voegtlin and Greenwood, 2016). Through its functions and
responsibilities in areas such as recruitment and selection, training and development,
performance management, rewards and compensation, talent management, and retention
management (Gond, et al., 2011), human resource managers can provide much needed support
in the context of CSR and are well positioned to facilitate the implementation of CSR initiatives.
Fenwick and Bierema (2008) highlight the key role of HRM in helping employees understand,
appreciate, and value CSR and in developing sustainability-focused culture. Similarly, Daily et
al., (2009) suggest that process in CSR adoption and dissemination can be achieved when
employees act beyond job descriptions, formal policies, and reward systems. The success in CSR
is therefore dependent on the discretionary behaviour of employee, with human resources
ideally placed to influence the nature of this behaviour. Furthermore, human resource
management can help to embed CSR practises within organisations by integrating pro-
sustainable practises with business operations, organisational mission and strategic objectives
(Jamali, et al., 2015), as well as educating stakeholders and influencing the wider institutional
environment through interventions with customers, supplies, regulatory institutions, strategic
partners, and competitors (Garavan, et al., 2010).
Nevertheless, tension also emerges between HR and CSR functions. In particular, Gond et al.,
(2011) suggest that if CSR is part of an autonomous function, is shared across departments, or
stems from another department other than HR, this can create tension in defining functional
territories. They further suggest that the overlapping functions will often involve power
relationships across departments, with the organisational configuration of CSR and HR
becoming, to some extent, an internal political issue. Recognising these challenges, Jamali et al.
(2015) contend that HRM’s role is not the only condition for CSR to operate successfully but that
it is nevertheless important to understand how HRM’s capabilities, resources, and expertise,
including in areas of recruitment, selection, communication, training and development, career
development, and reward and incentives (Mello, 2011), might be leveraged to support the
design and successful implementation of CSR interventions.
The interrelation between CSR and HRM has particular value within the context of hospitality
and tourism. As a service centred industry, Bohdanowicz and Zientara (2008) stress the
importance of the employee within the customer-organisation relationship. Work-related
attitudes that stem from organisational CSR behaviour play a critical role in hospitality and
61
tourism with service quality acting as one of the major factors behind organisational
performance (ibid). It follows that customer satisfaction, conditional to a large extent upon staff
behaviour, is crucial to the success of hospitality and tourism organisations.
3.7. Psychological Mechanisms Underlying the Effect of CSR on IndividualsIn addition to understanding contextual factors of organisational leadership, culture, and
intervention type, developing more effective CSR and understanding why CSR affects
stakeholders must include an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings behind why CSR
appeals to certain stakeholders (Rupp & Mallory, 2015). While micro-level research has made
significant progress towards answering some important questions, it is limited by a lack of
knowledge and guiding theory of the psychological foundations of CSR that explain when and
why it affects organisational stakeholders, such as employees (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013). Thus,
while social identity theory, in conjunction with stakeholder theory, provide the overarching
framework by which this thesis examines employee CSR engagement, additional theories are
also reviewed due to their role in integrating organisational psychology and CSR.
3.7.1. Organisational Identification TheoryAccording to organisational identification theory, which is an offshoot of social identity theory,
individuals develop a feeling of oneness or sense of belonging to an organisation (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989). Because organisational identification is relevant within the social identity process,
the effects of CSR on identification have also been explored (Brammer et al., 2015; De Roeck, et
al., 2014; Kim et al., 2010;). Indeed, the application of organisational identification theory to CSR
is a rare deviance from the usual mechanistic approach to examining employee engagement in
CSR with no consideration given to how and why these positive employee outcomes are
achieved (Glavas, 2016).
Social identity theory is widely used to explain the relationship between CSR and organisational
identification. For example, Aguinis and Glavas (2013) demonstrate that employees are
attracted to CSR owing to perceived value alignment and the opportunity CSR provides to
achieve a higher purpose in work. Rodrigo and Arenas (2008) have also investigated how
employees’ relationships with their organisation evolve as a result of organisational CSR efforts.
Their findings suggest that employee perceptions of their organisation’s social role and image
lead many of them, who formerly felt that their organisation was just a place to work, to view
their employer as an institution that shares their own social views and values (ibid). Research
by De Roeck and Delobbe (2012) suggests that increased organisational identification through
CSR is mediated by organisational trust. Korschun et al. (2014), Glavas and Goodwin (2013) and
Farooq et al. (2016) also suggest that CSR has a positive influence on organisational
identification.
62
3.7.2. Signalling Theory Signalling theory suggests that firms’ strategic choices and activities send signals to
stakeholders (Weigelt & Camerer, 1988), which in turn stakeholders use to form impressions of
the firm. Signalling theory is therefore intrinsically related to social identity theory, with
individuals’ membership in social categories, such as the organisation they work for, influencing
self-concept (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). As part of a growing number of strategic choices and
activities within organisations, CSR plays a growing role in organisations’ signalling processes.
This has key implications for future employees who may approach organisations with little
knowledge of what the employment experience will be like (Rynes, 1991). As a result,
employees may rely on indicators of potential outcomes throughout their experiences with the
organisation as signals of unknown organisational traits (Rupp & Mallory, 2015). For example,
social policies and behaviours toward stakeholders may be perceived as indicators of expected
treatment towards employees, and thus individuals may find companies participating in such
initiatives more trustworthy and desirable. Research findings by Greening and Turban (2000)
suggest that CSR signals an organisation’s goals and norms, commitment to diversity, and
working conditions. The work of Behrend et al., (2008) demonstrate that employee job pursuit
intentions increase when a pro-environmental message was communicated during recruitment.
Signalling CSR information about an organisation can improve the likelihood of employees
applying to work within organisations where they see themselves fitting in the organisation’s
overall value system (Gully, et al., 2013). In this way, signalling theory is closely tied to social
identity theories with scholars finding that CSR signals to prospective employees the values of
the organisation, thus increasing the potential for values congruence (ibid; Jones et al., 2014b).
Signalling theory is subsequently argued to inform the outcomes, underlying mechanisms, and
antecedents of CSR. While generally applied to the study of prospective, rather than incumbent,
employees in relation to CSR and firm attractiveness, findings from the CSR recruiting literature
do partially overlap with those from incumbent employees. CSR has been found to signal
organisational reputation resulting in increased pride and expectations of fair treatment (Jones
et al., 2014). Furthermore, corporate social responsibility behaviour can be seen to influence a
firm’s image and, by extension, an employees’ self-image (Turban and Greening, 1997).
Therefore, though these findings have implications for prospective employees, they are
similarly seen to influence incumbent employees.
3.7.3. Social Exchange TheorySocial exchange theory suggests that under certain conditions, individuals seek to reciprocate
those who benefit them. When individuals perceive a mutual benefit in interacting with a group
or individual, they develop positive feelings towards that party, resulting in feelings of trust,
63
obligation and mutual benefit (Blau, 1964). Social exchange relationships are therefore based on
mutual trust and the expectation that benefits will be exchanged over time (Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005).
This has implications for organisations, with research suggesting that employees reciprocate
the benefits they receive from their employer (Coyle-Shapiro & Neuman, 2004). Organisations
can foster social exchange with employees through policies, actions, and organisational
reputation, including those pertaining to corporate social responsibility (Rupp & Mallory, 2015).
Indeed, exploring corporate social responsibility and related interventions such as volunteering
through social exchange theory suggests that employees who believe they benefit from such
programmemes feel obligated to reciprocate by performing behaviours that benefit the
organisation (Jones, 2010; Slack, Corlett, & Morris, 2015).
As Rupp and Mallory (2015) suggest, studies using social exchange theory often examine social
exchange relationships through variables of organisational identification and commitment,
which focus on perceptions of similarity and trust. Farooq et al. (2014) theorised that when
organisations engage in corporate social responsibility, they are perceived as trustworthy by
employees, which results in increased employee identification with the organisation and,
consequently, attachment and organisational commitment. Increased organisational
commitment resulting from organisational CSR was a result of organisational trust and
identification (Farooq et al., 2014).
3.8. Micro-CSRAs is evidenced by the literature, CSR is frequently studied through the lens of stakeholder
theory (see Section 2.4), with CSR viewed as the execution of organisational obligations to a
range of stakeholders (Carroll, 1991; Freeman & Moutchnik, 2013). Consequently, due to the
involvement of a broad range of actors in the implementation of CSR initiatives, the CSR
discussion is ‘not just a discussion by business for business’ (Burchell, 2008). Nevertheless, not
all stakeholders have been given equal attention within the literature. Different areas have had
specific topics of focus; for example, within sociology and economics research, CSR is frequently
explored from the firm perspective. Alternatively, marketing and consumer research has largely
sought to understand public perceptions of organisational CSR. Historically, much of this
research has been undertaken in order to understand the instrumental, financial benefit of
corporate responsibility (Rupp & Mallory, 2015).
However, the focus on the financial outcomes, rather than processes, and external targets,
rather than internal audiences, has overshadowed critical stakeholder groups and caused
criticisms about CSR to be drawn (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014). Previous studies have
64
primarily examined the interplay and consequences of CSR at the organisational level (Glavas &
Piderit, 2009) with employees as a unit of analysis receiving relatively limited attention
(Aguilera et al., 2007; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008; Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006;
Swanson & Niehoff, 2001). Despite employees involvement through planning, participating in,
and witnessing CSR (Rupp & Mallory, 2015), existing CSR and HRM research has instead focused
on the correlation between leadership and responsible behaviour (Waldman, et al., 2006;
Swanson, 2008) or attempted to define socially responsible leadership (Waldman & Siegel,
2008), with little attention paid to individual levels of analysis (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012).
However, when CSR is aggregated at the organisational level, the variance of both the positive
and negative effects on employees is not captured (Glavas & Kelley, 2014). Indeed, as suggested
by Glavas and Piderit (2009), there are more questions than answers when it comes to the
effects of corporate responsibility on employees. As a result, Aguinis and Glavas (2012; 2013)
identify a gap in the literature regarding studies which examine the micro-foundations of CSR,
suggesting that further attention must be paid to non-customer stakeholder groups, particularly
employees (Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2006; Bhattacharya, Korschun, & Sen,, 2009;
Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschunt, 2006).
Indeed, as a primary stakeholder group, the individual behaviour of employees directly
contributes to organisational functioning, efficiency, and survival (Clarkson M. , 1995;
Donaldson & Preston, 1995) and thus, the achievement of organisational CSR outcomes is
largely dependent on employee understanding and willingness to collaborate (Collier &
Esteban, 2007). Due to the centrality of their role in CSR adoption, employees are considered
critical agents of CSR (Duarte & Neves, 2010; Peterson, 2004; Rupp, et al., 2006), with the
responsibility of daily CSR strategies ultimately falling on employees (Duarte, 2011). As a result,
in order to be effective, CSR must be viewed as an organisational capability and managed as an
organisation wide process, linking responsible behaviour to the embedded behaviour of
individual employees (Nijhof et al., 2006). As such, if CSR is to be successfully developed,
sustainability issues and the expectations of legitimate stakeholders must be embedded in
organisational strategies, policies and operations so as to be consistently and effectively
addressed by employees.
It is perhaps unsurprising then that micro-CSR, the psychological study of how corporate social
responsibility affects individuals (Rupp & Mallory, 2015) has subsequently emerged as a
growing area of study within industrial/organisational (I-O) psychology and organisational
behaviour. Indeed, the years since Aguinis and Glavas’ (2012) review of the literature which
found only 4% of individual-level CSR research have seen a marked jump in empirical research
on the psychology of CSR. The influence of CSR on employee behaviour has also been gaining
65
traction within both marketing and management literature (Berger et al., 2006; Brammer et al.,
2007; Collier & Esteban, 2007; Larson et al., 2008). These studies offer valuable insight into the
use of CSR for human resource management (HRM), with sustainability programmes enhancing
employee performance (Larson et al., 2008), commitment (Brammer et al., 2007; Rupp et al.,
2006) and employee-company identification (Berger et al., 2006; Collier & Esteban, 2007;
Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). However, as suggested by Kim et al., (2010), the literature has tended
to focus on employees’ perceptions of CSR initiatives, rather than their actual participation in
such activities. This is an unfortunate oversight given that employees are increasingly expected
to not just have opinions on CSR activities but to actively participate in CSR interventions (Kim
et al., 2010). As a result, exploring employee participation in CSR activities is fundamental to the
successful facilitation of pro-sustainable behaviour within organisations (Brammer et al., 2007).
There are a number of ways in which corporate responsibility may impact both prospective and
existing employees (Glavas & Piderit, How does doing good matter?, 2009), with individual
consequences varying widely based on personal characteristics and needs (Bhattacharya, Sen, &
Korschum, Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent, 2008). Unfortunately,
little attention has been devoted to the differences amongst employees in relation to CSR,
presupposing that this stakeholder group’s expectations, views and attitudes are homogeneous
(Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Understanding the variation amongst employees is important
because it relates to key questions of employee motivation, commitment and performance
(Glavas & Piderit, How does doing good matter?, 2009), and subsequently the effectiveness of
CSR interventions within an organisation.
3.8.1. A Person-Centric Perspective of CSRWithin micro-CSR, there are arguments for a more person-centric approach to research in
industrial-organisational (I-O) psychology. A person-centric perspective advocates for a work
psychology that is focused on the experience of the worker (Weiss & Rupp, 2011). In the context
of CSR, such an approach requires researchers’ to not only explore the interrelationships
amongst variables, but also to attempt to understand the individual and relative experience of
individuals as they engage with the organisation and organisational CSR. Weiss and Rupp
(2011) contend that treating workers as objects, a dominant paradigm within I-O, limits
understanding of the ways in which humans relate to work. They argue for a more coherent
focus on the worker and on the subjective experience of working which would contribute to a
better understanding of individuals’ true experiences surrounding issues of CSR.
Critically, while it can certainly be argued that employees are an important stakeholder group
and their reactions to an organisation’s CSR efforts are relevant to understanding the social
good generated by CSR initiatives, the research to date has not exactly taken this position.
66
Rather, in the industrial/organisational psychology tradition, this research seems to lean
towards the organisational, as opposed to societal, gains produced by CSR efforts, in the form of
employee engagement, commitment, and the like. As highlighted by Rupp and Mallory (2015),
research fails to consider employee responses to CSR as a criterion of CSR success.
Rupp et al. (2013a) suggest that a person-centric approach should be applied at various levels of
organisational hierarchy, considering all employees who witness acts of CSR, implement CSR, as
well as leaders who have the power to initiative CSR on a more strategic level. A person-centric
I/O psychology perspective provides the tools necessary to study issues of perception
formation, moral reasoning, motivation, attitude formation, and response behaviour as
employees witness and take part in CSR while carrying out their working lives (Guo, et al.,
2011).
3.8.2. Employee CSR PerceptionsWithin the micro-CSR perspective, there is a stream of literature that views employee
perceptions of CSR as more important than an organisation’s objective CSR (Rupp, Shao,
Thornton, & Skarlicki, 2013c). This literature focuses on underlying psychological outcomes
such as organisational commitment (Mueller, Hattrup, Spiess, & Lin-Hi, 2012) or psychological
needs such as security, sense of belonging, and meaningful existence (Bauman & Skitka, 2012).
Customer perceptions of CSR have also been well documented within the literature (Alvarado-
Herrera et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2013; Oberseder et al., 2013). However, notwithstanding the
contribution of these studies, the literature examining how employees assess and respond to
CSR remains limited (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Panagopoulos, 2016; Shen & Benson, 2014).
Specifically, the majority of micro-level CSR research has focused on consequences rather than
antecedents of employees' perceptions. Extant research suggests a range of outcomes resulting
from positive employee CSR perceptions, including job performance (Shin, Hur, & Kang, 2016),
organisational commitment (Brammer, Millington, & Rayton, 2007; Kim, Lee, Lee, & Kim, 2010;
Peterson, Recruitment Strategies for Encouraging Participation in Corporate Volunteer
Programs, 2004), and employee attitudes (Glavas & Kelley, 2014). Consequently, while there is a
good understanding of the ways in which employees’ CSR perceptions affect critical employee
outcomes, less is known about the factors that drive these perceptions (Rupp & Mallory, 2015).
As Panagopoulos (2016) contend, the majority of micro-level CSR research has focused on
consequences rather than antecedents of employees' perceptions of corporate social
performance. This is an unfortunate oversight given that insights into employee CSR
perceptions critically influence organisation’s attempts to successfully manage those
perceptions (Panagopoulos, 2016). Unsurprisingly, this lack of research has led to calls for
67
increased research that into the “…factors that affect individuals' perceptions of CSR policies
and practices” (Morgeson et al., 2013).
3.8.3. Employee Participation in CSRAguinis and Glavas (2013) ask, ‘‘when and why does CSR lead to positive outcomes for
employees, organisations, and society?”. Despite complexities of both its history and definition,
there is convergence on the voluntary nature of these actions. It is therefore important to
consider who implements these voluntary initiatives. There is increasingly recognition that CSR
takes effect at the individual level, through the actions of lower-level business units and
employees (Glavas, 2016). Employees subsequently play a key role in the adoption and
dissemination of corporate social responsibility efforts within the organisation (Collier &
Esteban, 2007).
Employee participation in CSR is important for a number of reasons. First, as Chen and Hung-
Baesecke (2014) argue, employee participation can contribute to making CSR appear part of
organisational culture or values, rather than an outcome of external pressure. Second, corporate
social responsibility requires the long-term behavioural change of organisational stakeholders,
including employees, whose participation will be required to achieve such changes. Third,
numerous benefits arise from employee involvement in CSR including enhanced employee
morale (Mamantov, 2009), job satisfaction (Lee, Park, & Lee, 2013), organisational performance
(Lee, Park, & Lee, 2013), and organisational identification (Glavas & Goodwin, 2013).
Employee participation in CSR initiatives frequently occurs in the form of corporate volunteer
programmes, in which employees offer their time and skills in service to the community
(Peterson, 2004; Wilde, 1993). However, the role of employee participation in CSR is not
confined to the mere execution of CSR activities with employees also able to suggest CSR policy
(Maclagen, 1999). Nevertheless, despite the existence of various opportunities for employee
participation in CSR, research indicates that levels of corporate volunteering and fundraising
remain limited (Roza, 2013). For example, in their study of giving in the Netherlands, Schuyt et
al. (2013), found that that participation in corporate social responsibility tends to be limited to a
specific group of employees, with maximum participation rates of less than 20%.
These participation rates reflect the challenges encountered by organisations when attempting
to engage employees in CSR interventions. Implementation of corporate social responsibility
policies and practises within organisations often implicitly assume that managers and
employees are aware of and engage CSR (Haugh & Talwar, 2010), which may contribute, at least
in part, to the difficulty in achieving organisational participation in CSR. While CSR outcomes
68
are largely dependent on employee understanding and willingness to collaborate (Collier &
Esteban, 2007), with CSR practises isolated from operating units, employees are often unaware
of sustainability issues (Porter and Kramer, 2006). As a result, many employees subsequently
lack awareness of and involvement in organisational CSR initiatives (Bhattacharya, Sen, &
Korschum, Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent, 2008) . In order to be
effective, CSR must therefore be viewed as an organisational capability and managed as an
organisation wide process, linking responsible behaviour to the embedded behaviour of
individual employees (Nijhof et al., 2006). As such, if CSR is to be successfully developed,
sustainability issues and the expectations of legitimate stakeholders must be embedded in
organisational strategies, policies and operations so as to be consistently and effectively
addressed by employees (Joker & de Witte, 2006).
Furthermore, willingness to participate in CSR is strongly linked to employee-company
identification (Kim, Lee, Lee, & Kim, 2010). As suggested by Collier and Esteban (2007), if
organisational attributes are perceived as attractive by employees, they will identify strongly
with the organisation, and strong organisational identification may translate into co-operative
and citizenship-type behaviours. However, organisational identification is not a static concept
and thus is ever changing. Therefore, episodes of wrongdoing in corporate history that become
public knowledge can leave formerly engaged employees feeling uncomfortable with their own
self-understanding and confused about their organisational allegiance (ibid). Participation can
also be linked to a number of drivers including appraisal and feedback (Smith & Sharicz, 2011),
reward systems (Laabs, 1992; Patton & Daley, 1998), autonomy and decision-making (Smith &
Langford, 2011).
3.8.4. Employee Expectations and Attitudes towards CSRIt is widely recognised that a firm’s involvement in CSR influences stakeholders’ reactions to the
organisation (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). In particular, research has focused on external
stakeholders with a growing body of literature that suggests CSR has the potential to raise
investor interest, influence customer purchasing habits and improve government-industry
relations (McWilliams & Siegel, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm
Perspective, 2001; Treviño & Nelson, 2004; Tuzzolino & Armandi, 1981). Significantly less
attention has been paid to internal stakeholders such as employees (Aguinis & Glavas, What We
Know and Don't Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda,
2012; Bhattacharya, Korschun, & Sen, Strengthening Stakeholder-Company Relationships
Through Mutually Beneficial Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives, 2009; Valentine &
Fleischman, 2008). Nevertheless, these individuals are heavily influenced by sustainability
69
efforts, with CSR efforts influencing employee responsibilities, job attitudes, productivity, and
employee turnover (Treviño & Nelson, 2004; Tuzzolino & Armandi, 1981).
Subsequently, the success of any corporate social responsibility strategy is closely linked to
employee expectations and attitudes about both what the social responsibilities of a firm are, as
well as how the organisation should fulfil these responsibilities (Liu, Liston-Heyes, & Wai-Wai,
2010; Verbos, Gerard, Forshey, Harding, & Miller, 2007). Critically, as Rodrigo and Arenas
(2008) suggest, limited attention has been given to the differences among employees in relation
to CSR, assuming that there are consistent expectations and attitudes within this group.
Nevertheless, research suggests that expectations, views, and attitudes towards CSR vary
amongst employees (Faber et al., 2005; Glavas & Piderit, 2009; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008)
In addition to existing employees, prospective employees also hold expectations regarding CSR
involvement, with job choice increasingly informed by both the broader reputation of an
organisation as well as localised involvement in particular causes (Moon, 2007). Demands
concerning work-life balance must increasingly be met in terms of not just HR policies, but also
organisational CSR policies (Grosser & Moon, 2005; Muthuri, Matten, & Moon, 2009). As a result,
due to changing employee expectations, the expectation-performance gap must be
acknowledged and addressed in corporate communications (Stoian & Zaharia, 2012).
However, organisations are challenged by employee expectations and the expectation-
performance gap since finite company resources are unable to address all issues and those that
take priority over others may conflict with employee expectations for CSR (Haugh & Talwar,
2010). Furthermore, as suggested by Haugh and Talwar (Haugh & Talwar, 2010), rising
employee awareness of sustainability issues may increase their expectations regarding the
extent of organisational contribution to the resolution of these problems. Organisations must
therefore manage multiple identities in order to avoid potentially harmful misalignments
(Balmer & Greyser, 2003). As suggested by van de Ven (2008), if a promise/performance gap is
discovered, an organisation runs the risk of being accused of hypocrisy and deception. This is
illustrated in Balmer and Greyser’s (2003) example of The Body Shop who positioned itself as
an environmentally friendly organisation with products not tested on animals. In its early
phases, the desired and actual communicated identities of The Body Shop were in alignment;
however, difficulties arose when the company became a multinational enterprise, expanding
activities to the United States (van de Ven, 2008). Rapid growth forced the company to buy
ingredients that were not produced under the conditions of fair trade, leading to accusations
and debate over the validity of the company’s ethical and environmental credentials (Balmer &
Greyser, 2003).
70
3.8.5. Employee EmpowermentIt is increasingly evident that employees form a valuable part of the workforce and are proving
to be essential to the successful implementation of organisational strategies. However, in order
to positively influence the implementation of these strategies, employee empowerment is
critical. Leitch et al. (Leitch, Nieves, Burke, Little, & Gorin, 1995) describe employee
empowerment as “the importance of giving employees both the ability and the responsibility to
take active steps to identify problems in the working environment that affect quality or
customer service and to deal effectively with them”.
Notably, these feelings of empowerment have been found to foster employee commitment
(Janssen, 2004). As discussed by Mohrman et al. (1996), new strategies and programmes will
produce the best results when employees are treated as major stakeholders, with empowered
employees committed to participate and engage in sustainable behaviour. Conversely,
employees who are not empowered have less commitment for improvement than empowered
employees (Argyris, Empowerment: The Emperor's New Clothes, 1998). Furthermore, as
suggested by Liu et al. (2010), employee decision making not only helps foster a sense of
partnership but it has also been seen to contribute to perceptions of organisational
transparency and accountability (Goodijk, 2003; Gray, 2002; Van Buren H. , 2001).
Ramus (2002) suggests that employee engagement can be achieved through a range of
empowerment measures, including capacity building such as training, education and skill
development. This is in line with Benn et al.’s (2006) argument that actively promoting
strategies of knowledge creation is the most viable path to creating a sustainable corporate and
economic life, with investing in people therefore fundamental to sustainability. Management has
also frequently been seen to facilitate employee empowerment by altering organisational
structures, policies and procedures to facilitate empowerment (Leitch, Nieves, Burke, Little, &
Gorin, 1995). For example, as suggested by Daily and Huang (2001), by altering organisational
form from traditional top down structures to flatter, horizontal organisations management is
able to encourage increased employee empowerment. This is consistent with research by
Wever and Vorhauer (1993) that demonstrates workers contribute more effectively when
power is shifted away from management and is shared with employees who subsequently have
the autonomy and authority to provide recommendations and implement good practises.
Additionally, management must realign employee responsibilities to allow time for training and
exploration of new techniques for completing work responsibilities in a sustainable manner
(Ramus, 2002). As suggested by Pfeffer (1995) the underlying trait of successful organisations is
not a reliance on technology, patents or strategic position for sustained advantage but rather
through workforce management and employee empowerment. This is consistent with
71
principles of sustainability in which collaboration and partnerships are seen as critical tools due
to the importance of involving diverse stakeholders in planning and management (Bramwell &
Lane, Tourism Collaboration and Parnerships: Politics, Practice, and Sustainability, 2000).
In addition to power redistribution, research by Kristoff (1996) provides strong evidence that
value alignment plays a fundamental role in employee motivation and empowerment. However,
focus on organisational value alignment is often one sided, with emphasis on the needs of the
organisation rather than the employee, thus failing to tap into core human values and emotions
(Glavas, Employee Engagement and Sustainability, 2012) and hindering employee
empowerment and organisational commitment. Upper management often sets and pursues
organisational goals and values to which employees with less authority are expected to become
committed; however, when there is conflicting goals and values between levels of management,
employees may fail to develop or maintain high levels of organisational commitment (Janssen,
2004).
3.9. ConclusionThe business environment presents a number of factors that may affect employee engagement
in corporate social responsibility. By examining overarching organisational features in
conjunction with identity, this chapter reviews existing literature at the organisational and
individual level, as well as identifying potential opportunities for theory development and
contribution.
In particular, the review of the literature suggests that intervention type influences employee
engagement. Nevertheless, while different types of CSR have been addressed individually, they
have not been examined in conjunction. Drawing on findings from both the corporate
fundraising and corporate volunteering literature suggests that different positive affects are
derived from different forms of CSR and thus, employees may engage or disengaged based on
the type of CSR intervention. The need to address this gap in understanding subsequently
contributes to the analysis of data with consideration given to mechanisms driving employee
engagement in corporate volunteering, fundraising, or both.
A review of the literature also identifies a need for the exploration of corporate philanthropy in
settings beyond higher education, as well as a need to understand employee motivations for
giving. The need for research in this area is further exacerbated by changes in corporate
philanthropy, which has seen a marked increase in employee involvement. This thesis therefore
contributes to these gaps in the literature by analysing differences in employee engagement
based on type CSR.
72
A broader review of organisational factors affecting corporate social responsibility suggests that
leadership plays a central role in corporate social responsibility. However, thus far, focus has
been on the role of leadership in organisational CSR engagement more generally, rather than the
specific engagement of employees. Nevertheless, with leadership shown to influence a number
of organisational outcomes, a review of the literature identifies leadership as an important area
of analysis for employee CSR engagement.
A number of psychological mechanisms are also suggested to influence the affect of CSR on
individuals. While these theories are drawn more generally, they can be related to employee
engagement with corporate social responsibility in a number of ways. Understanding the
theoretical underpinnings behind why CSR appeals to stakeholder groups can subsequently
contribute to employee CSR engagement. Existing literature on micro-CSR is also presented.
Attention is drawn to gaps in understanding at both the individual level as well as in the area of
person-centric perspectives of CSR. The importance of individual level analysis is subsequently
highlighted in a discussion of employee participation in CSR, expectations and attitudes, and
empowerment.
73
Chapter 4: Employee Engagement
4.1. IntroductionAs suggested by Morsing and Oswald (2009), much of the sustainability literature assumes
seamless and supportive adoption of corporate sustainability interventions with a consequent
demonstration of appropriate organisational behaviour. It is assumed that managers and
employees accept and adopt sustainability strategies unchallenged with social and
environmental concerns presumed to be motivation enough (Smith & Langford, 2011).
However, despite observations within the literature about what needs to be done concerning
CSR, in practise many organisations are unclear how to effectively structure and implement an
appropriate approach to sustainability interventions (Galpin & Whittington, 2012). As such,
there still remains the question of how leaders can achieve organisational support to best
integrate sustainability into organisational systems, processes and structures.
Employee engagement has subsequently emerged as a platform by which to encourage the
effective implementation of sustainability and CSR interventions (Collier & Esteban, 2007), thus,
forming the starting point for Chapter 4. Notably, in the discussion of employee CSR
engagement, the focus of this research is specifically on head office employees. While employees
across and throughout MNCs are responsible for adopting and enacting pro-sustainable
behaviour, head office employees are responsible for communicating organisational values to
stakeholders as well for as setting precedent for expected ethical behaviour across the
organisation. The headquarter/subsidiary relationship is central to the CSR strategies of
multinational corporations (Cruz & Pedrozo, 2009) and employees who observe strongly
encouraging signals on the part of their company are more likely to adopt a pro-sustainable
behaviour (Ramus & Steger, 2000). Consequently, understanding employee CSR engagement
with head office employees can contribute to the dissemination of CSR across the organisation.
In order to achieve employee engagement Morsing and Oswald (2009) suggest appropriate
management control systems are necessary in order to communicate to employees what
behaviour is desired and to ensure that corporate sustainability interventions are implemented.
Understanding forms of engagement within the workplace as well as antecedents and barriers
to this behaviour subsequently aid in the development of an engaged workforce. In doing so, it
is equally as important to examine the design of engagement interventions and evaluation
taxonomies.
Finally, the chapter concludes by presenting a conceptual framework for employee engagement
and disengagement. Having reviewed employee CSR engagement as well as engagement and
74
disengagement more generally, the framework identifies key gaps in understanding,
subsequently positioning the research question and objectives within the wider literature.
4.2. Employee EngagementThe concept of employee engagement has received increasing attention from both practitioners
and academics with several approaches to understanding the concept of engagement being
developed. However, both practitioners and researchers are challenged by competing and
inconsistent interpretations and meanings of the construct (Macey & Schneider, 2008). As is
suggested by Shuck (2011), while distinct streams of literature have emerged across a range of
fields including psychology, sociology, management, human resource development, human
resource management, and health care, this lack of continuity creates a further hurdle in
understanding engagement.
Consequently, it is unsurprising that the employee engagement literature is challenged by a
plurality of definitions. For example, Baumruk (2004) defines employee engagement within the
confines of emotional and intellectual commitment to the organisation or the quantity of
discretionary effort. Alternatively, Shuck and Wollard (2010, p. 103) developed a definition
specifically for the field of HRD, defining employee engagement as “an individual employee’s
cognitive, emotional, and behavioural state directed toward desired organisational outcomes”.
Yankelovich and Immerwahr (1984) outline it as the voluntary effort employees provide above
and beyond what is required by employees in their job. Employee engagement is defined by the
Corporate Leadership Council (2004, p. 3) as “the extent to which employees commit to
something or someone in their organisation, how hard they work and how long they stay as a
result of that commitment”.
It subsequently appears that there are sufficient grounds to arguing that while engagement is
related to other constructs in organisational behaviour, it remains distinct (Saks, 2006). For
example, employee engagement is conceptually different from both organisational commitment
behaviour (OCB) and organisational commitment. Though it contains many elements of
commitment and OCB, it is not a perfect match with either; this is because neither commitment
or OCB reflect the two way nature of engagement nor considers the extent to which engaged
employees are expected to have some degree of business awareness (Robinson, et al., 2004).
Saks (2006) contends that organisational commitment also differs from engagement in that it
refers to a person’s attitude and attachment towards their organisation, whilst it could be
argued that engagement is not merely an attitude; it is the degree to which an individual is
attentive to their work and absorbed in the performance of their role.
75
While employee engagement is a relatively new concept, there are a growing number of studies
that focus on the benefits of employee involvement in corporate decision-making (see: Cotton,
et al., 1988; Lam, et al., 2002; Spitzeck & Hansen, 2010). However, there remains a shortage of
studies that focus explicitly on employee engagement in corporate responsibility (Liu, et al.,
2010). Little is known about why, how, and when employees are engaged by CSR (Glavas, 2016).
Liu et al. (2010) argue that while similar, distinguishing between the two is important. The
former is frequently based on enhancing job satisfaction in relation to work or working
conditions; whereas the later focuses on enhancing job satisfaction as a side-effect of corporate
responsible behaviour which is likely unrelated to the work or working conditions of the
employee (ibid).
Within the literature, those such as Owen et al. (2001) argue that the more stakeholders are
connected and involved in an organisation’s CSR activities, the more likely they are to
comprehend, validate and champion the company’s sustainability initiatives (see also: Crane &
Matten, 2004; Maio, 2003). This is particularly important for employees, given that many of
these individuals are frequently a key point of contact for stakeholder groups and are often
considered a reliable source of information in the sustainability discussion, with their word
carrying more weight than an organisational representative or the media (Dawkins, 2005).
Collier and Esteban (2007) contend that the successful employment of CSR initiatives is
dependent on the responsiveness of employee, suggesting that to facilitate CSR engagement
employees must first be motivated and committed to overcoming the challenges associated with
responsible behaviour. Furthermore, engagement of employees has been seen to lead to
positive employee attitude, proactive job behaviour, higher levels of employee psychological
well-being, better performance, increased creativity, and improved retention rates (Glavas &
Piderit, 2009; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007 and 2008).
In addition to organisational benefits, employees are increasingly demanding greater
engagement in the work place (Moon, 2007). Shifting societal trends have made work an
increasingly central aspect of the lives of many employees (Glavas, 2012). However, due to the
growing centrality of employment in their lives, Wrzensniewski et al. (2003) suggest that
individuals have little time left to find fulfilment outside of work. As a result, employees seek to
find increased meaning in their work (ibid), thus making social and environmentally
responsible activities appealing to employees.
Furthermore, it is important to recognise variations in engagement factors such as gender,
organisational level and culture (Bhattacharya, et al., 2008; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Some
evidence suggests that gender plays a role in employee response to CSR (Wehrmeyer & McNeil,
76
2000), with the relationship between CSR and commitment stronger for women than it is for
men (Brammer, et al., 2007; Stawiski, et al., 2010). Research by Stawiski et al. (2010) also
suggests that the higher an employee is in the organisation, the more committed and positive
that individual is about the organisation’s CSR efforts. Mauno et al. (2005) also found that
predictors of work engagement vary across different organisation sectors.
4.2. Employee DisengagementIncreasingly, employees are developing and championing sustainability initiatives at work
(Ramus & Steger, 2000). Indeed, these strategic initiatives cannot be implemented without the
support and participation of individual employees (Jenkin, et al., 2011). However, employee
participation is complicated, with sustainability behaviour often voluntary rather than required
(Ramus & Killmer, 2007). As a result, the cumulative sustainability efforts of a company are
ultimately affected by the discretionary decision making of individual employees, who may or
may not be engaged with the organisation or its sustainability efforts (Lamm, et al., 2014).
Consequently, due to the aggregate impact of these decisions, it’s critical to understand factors
associated with individual employees’ choices to engage or disengage with sustainable
behaviours (Lamm, et al., 2014).
Conflicting material on the issue of worker
disengagement suggests that the subject area
has not yet been systematically researched
(Pech & Slade, 2006; Kular, et al., 2008).
Nevertheless, it is understood that there exist
different levels of engagement, including
engaged, not engaged, or active
disengagement (see Table 4.1), all of which
can vary over time (Goffman, 1961; Kahn,
1990). Employee engagement is defined by
Kahn (1990, p. 694) the “harnessing of
organisational members” selves to their work
roles. Those employees that are engaged
“express their authentic selves through physical involvement, cognitive awareness and
emotional connections” (Truss, et al., 2013, p. 2659). Alternatively, employees that are not
engaged are described as being effectively “checked out”, putting time but not energy or passion
into their work (Crabtree, 2005). Employees that are actively disengaged have uncoupled from
their work roles, both cognitively and emotionally (Hochschild, 1983). Furthermore, in addition
to cognitive and emotional withdrawal, disengaged workers are shown to undermine what their
77
Table 4.1. Levels of Employee Engagement
Levels of Employee EngagementEngaged Employees work with passion and feel a profound connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the organisation forward.Not Engaged Employees are essentially “checked out”. They’re sleepwalking through their workday, putting time but not energy or passion, into their work.Actively Disengaged Employees aren’t just unhappy at work; they’re busy acting out their unhappiness. Everyday these workers undermine what their engaged coworkers accomplish.Source: Adapted from Crabtree (2005)
engaged co-workers accomplish (Sundaray, 2011). Indeed, disengaged employees may be more
distracted, less productive, poor decision makers, uninterested in their work, and more likely to
take time off (Pech & Slade, 2006).
However, it is not necessarily clear from the literature whether engagement and disengagement
are opposites (Macey & Schneider, 2008). For example, Macey and Schneider (2008) suggest
that the opposite of engagement could be “non-engagement”, rather than disengagement, or
perhaps even burnout (see also: Gonzalez-Roma, et al., 2006; Maslach, et al., 2001). This raises
questions with regards to the causes and antecedents of disengagement. Very little information
exists on the antecedents of disengagement, with a greater focus having been placed on the
measurement and analysis of symptomatic factors, rather than causal or determining factors of
disengagement (Pech & Slade, 2006). The same cannot be said for research on the antecedents
of engagement, a topic that while still limited (Wollard & Shuck, 2011), has growing interest
from a number of researchers (Pravadas & Mishra, 2014). However, if these two concepts are in
fact not opposites, the absence of identified drivers for engagement cannot necessarily be said
to be the antecedents of disengagement. Critically, this raises questions about the ways in which
both engagement and disengagement are researched. Thus far, studies have focused on
investigating the concept of employee engagement, with employee disengagement remaining
relatively unexplored. While the impact of disengagement is examined (e.g. financial impacts of
disengagement), researchers often fail to explore the experiences of disengaged employees
(Johnson, 2016).
Despite a limited
understanding of employee
disengagement, it is clear that
there is a growing prevalence
of employees who are either
not engaged or are actively
disengaged in the workplace
(Crabtree, 2014). Indeed,
recent research in the UK and
other countries shows that in
today’s organisations, there
are more disengaged
employees than there are
engaged employees (Crabtree,
78
Figure 4.1. Determinants for the incubation of employee disengagement through the lack of psychological identification and meaningfulness
2014; Kular, et al., 2008). In the American context, research has found approximately 70% of
workers to be disengaged (Gallup, 2014; Welbourne, 2011), with the percetnage of disengaegd
employees remaining consistent over time (Gallup, 2011). Research by Beech and Anderson
(2003) suggests that low levels of engagement may arise due to poor levels of trust between
employees and employers, with only 39% of employees trusting what their business leaders
were telling them. Luthans and Peterson (2002) find that a correlation also exists between
levels of employee engagement and manager self-efficacy, emphasising the importance of
emotional and cognitive engagement in the workplace. Furthermore, Frank et al. (2004)
highlight the ability of first-line supervisors in driving disengagement. This is consistent with
the findings of Pech and Slade (2006) that demonstrate a common and recurring theme
between engagement, meaningfulness and identification, which can be found in the elements of
employee cognition, emotion and behaviour. Consequently, as is demonstrated in Figure 4.1,
Pech and Slade (2006) contend that employee disengagement can be exacerbated through a lack
of psychological identification and meaningfulness.
4.3. Employee Engagement and CSRTraditionally, businesses have used corporate social responsibility initiatives as a means of
securing positive investor relations and bolstering public image (Altman & Vidaver-Cohen,
2000; Treviño & Nelson, 2004; Wymer & Samu, 2003). However, emerging trends suggest that
business leaders are increasingly employing CSR interventions as a means to build sustained
competitive advantage (Kermani, 2006; Porter, 2006). CSR is being used as a tool to recruit,
retain and engage employees (Mirvis, 2012). As an increasing number of employees seek
greater fulfilment in the workplace (Cone Communications, 2009; Moon, 2007), CSR provides an
opportunity to improve employee performance (Larson, et al., 2008); commitment (Brammer,
et al., 2007; Rupp, et al., 2006); and employee-company identification and fit (Berger, et al.,
2006; Collier & Esteban, 2007; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008).
The pertinence of this relationship is recognised by both academics and practitioners, with a
number of studies emerging that explore the relationship between CSR and employee
engagement (see: Ferreira & Real de Oliveira, 2014; Gross, 2010; Smith & Langford, 2011).
According to Forbes Magazine’s article on The Top 10 Trends in CSR for 2012, employee
engagement ranks number three, with the connection between these two fields continuing to
grow (Mohin, 2012). This relationship is particularly important when, according to a 2013
report made by the Gallup Institute only 13% of employees across 142 countries worldwide are
engaged in their job (Crabtree, 2014). CSR consequently provides a valuable tool by which to
improve employee engagement (Ferreira & Real de Oliveira, 2014).
79
Figure 4.1. Determinants for the incubation of employee disengagement through the lack of psychological identification and meaningfulness
Furthermore, as suggested by Marquis et al. (2010), engaging employees in CSR interventions
offers an effective way to meet employees’ emotional needs, thus achieving increased
organisational commitment and motivation. Similarly, research by Strandberg (2009) suggests
that employees prefer to work for organisations whose values are aligned with employees’
personal values. Consequently, by actively involving employees in CSR an organisation is better
able to enhance employee recruitment and retention. The Massachusetts Business Roundtable
(2009) addressed specific benefits of employee involvement in CSR initiatives, including tying
employees into the company’s mission and vision; leveraging employees’ current skills; and
providing employees with the opportunity to develop new skills. Research has found that CSR is
most effective when employees are the actual enactors, with the organisation functioning as the
enabler. This research provides evidence of the benefit of involving employees in CSR
initiatives; however, as discussed by (Hongyue, 2011), no research has explored how effective
current initiatives are in engaging employees in CSR.
Due to the insufficient and improper engagement of employees in sustainability initiatives,
several best practises and models for engagement have been developed within the literature.
The Harvard Business School suggests seven aspects for greater employee engagement in CSR
which include: treating employees as internal customers; being specific with CSR initiatives;
considering Gen Y’s preference and influence on CSR; effectively communicating; encouraging
learning and fostering development through CSR; encouraging participation at all levels;
considering and acknowledging the benefits (Marquis, et al., 2010). Discussions arising from the
Massachusetts Business Roundtable (2009) suggest creating and maintaining a clear link to the
organisation’s mission; securing executive endorsement; engaging employees at all levels as
decision makers and leaders; leveraging employee skills; providing opportunities for skill
development; and encouraging team work through group volunteer programmes.
4.4. Antecedents to EngagementGiven its organisational benefits, the concept of employee engagement is growing in popularity
both in practise and within the literature; however, little is known about its antecedents
(Karatepe & Olugbade, 2009; Wollard & Shuck, 2011); most often, engagement is discussed as a
behavioural outcome (Shuck & Wollard, 2010) with little attention given to the antecedents that
drive the state of engagement (Wollard & Shuck, 2011). Nevertheless, existing research suggests
that antecedents explain a significant variance in job and organisation engagement and can
subsequently aid in the development of an increasingly engaged workforce (Saks, 2006).
Exploring this gap in the literature not only addresses a void in theory and research but also in
practise (Wollard & Shuck, 2011). Practitioners who can identify potential antecedents within
80
their organisation may be better equipped to present viable strategies to stakeholders, identify
potential challenges and communicate with clearer vision and direction (ibid). The literature
suggests that antecedents to employee engagement must be in place before an organisation can
reap the benefits of an engaged workforce (Rich, et al., 2010; Saks, 2006). Therefore identifying
and integrating these antecedents is fundamental to the successful development of employee
engagement.
The extant research identifies a range of antecedents at the organisational level that may impact
employee engagement, including appraisal, feedback, and review. Smith and Sharicz (2011)
suggest that if participation in environmental initiatives is part of employee performance
appraisal it could act as a major motivating factor for employees (Denton, 1999). This is
evidenced by Hallmark where an organisation wide appraisal system was implemented in an
effort to align organisational vision and values during a multi-company merger, resulting in
marked improvement in employee engagement (Cook, 2008). Nevertheless, for many, corporate
social responsibility is not formalised through appraisal, feedback and review reflecting a
potential barrier to employee CSR engagement and emphasising the difficulty faced by
organisations in embedding CSR policy and practice.
Central to organisational efforts for CSR engagement is managerial action and support. As Seijts
and Crim (2006) suggest, employee engagement is a direct reflection of an employees’
relationship with their manager. Indeed, while there are a number of factors influencing
employee engagement and commitment, one of the most influential drivers is seen to be
manager-employee relationships (Lockwood, 2007). Management is a key driver for
engagement (Shuck, 2011) and therefore a prevalent research topic. Most often, the focus of this
research emphasises the role of manager self-efficacy (Arakawa & Greenberg, 2007), the role of
managers in creating a supportive climate (Kroth & Keeler, 2009; Plakhotnik et al., 2011), the
execution of mission and vision on an individual organisational levels (Fleming & Asplund,
2007), and the role and perception of manager expectations (Bezuijen, Berg, Dam, & Thierry,
2009). Research has also suggested that managers with a non-defensive approach (Shuck, 2011)
positively affect the development of engagement.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.3., corproate social responsibility is identified as a key
antecedent to employee engagement. However, while corporate social responsibility is
identified as an antecedent to employee engagement more generally (e.g. Ferreira & Real de
Oliveira, 2014; Gross, 2010; Mirvis, 2012; Smith & Langford, 2011), this thesis identifies a need
to identify drivers to employee CSR engagement. Though still in its early stages, the antecedents
and outcomes of employee engagement are relatively well documented. However, by
81
comparison, employee CSR engagement and disengagement form a sizeable gap in the literature
and thus, provide opportunity for original contributions to knowledge.
4.5. Communication for CSR Communication is also shown to play a critical role in employee engagement. Strategic and
continuous communication lends credibility to an organisation’s leadership (Lockwood, 2007).
Conversely, lack of communication or poorly communicated information can lead to distrust,
dissatisfaction, scepticism, cynicism and unwanted turnover (ibid). As a result, management
creates an environment for engagement by developing a targeted, proactive strategic
communications plan (ibid). These communication efforts can include communicating from the
top down to build employee confidence and buy in; involving employees, such as through focus
groups; communicating and explaining both positive and negative change within the
organisation; personalising communications to address the question of “what’s in it for me?”;
and tracking results and setting milestones to evaluate the objectives of the communication plan
(Kress, 2005).
One form of communication with employees includes regular employee surveys, which provide
a means of monitoring engagement and its variations across units. Open, effective
communication strategies will provide leaders with information to help guide employee
development (Bakker et al., 2011). For example, greeting card manufacturer Hallmark has
integrated annual staff surveys into their organisation with great success after a period of
radical change in which they merged with four other companies (Cook, 2008). Critically, this
suggests two-way communications in which employee feedback is also sought. Detert and
Burris (2007) and Morrison et al., (2015) suggest that employee feedback intended to improve
organisational functioning is crucial to performance. However, despite this, many individuals do
not feel comfortable speaking up (Miller R. , 2003; Ryan & Oestreich, 1998). Voice is defined by
Detert and Burris (2007) as:
The discretionary provision of information intended to improve organisational functioning
to someone inside an organisation with the perceived authority to act, even though such
information may challenge and upset the status quo of the organisation and its power
holders.
Research suggests that employee voice can contribute to more effective decision-making and
better error detection (Morrison & Milliken, Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world, 2000), whereas employee silence is considered indicative of
employee fear, concerns about negative repercussions, or feelings of futility (Milliken et al.,
2003; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008a). Other scholars have emphasised the importance of
82
employee contribution for organisational learning with employees able to offer a different
perspective on organisational challenges (Detert & Burris, 2007; Tangirala & Ramanujam,
2008b). Interestingly, while employee voice has positive effects inside the organisation, Milliken
et al., (2015) contend that voice is also essential in contributing to communities and societies,
an integral aspect of corporate social responsibility.
Furthermore, leaders within the organisation must communicate a clear vision so that
employees understand what the organisation’s goals are, why they are important and how they
are to be attained (Seijts & Crim, 2006). In addition, communicating expectations of employees
and their role in achieving organisational success is important. Research shows that the
connection between an employee’s job and organisational strategy, including understanding
how important the job is to the firm’s success is the most important driver of employee
engagement (Lockwood, 2007)
In addition to communicating organisational vision and goals, Seijts and Crim (2006) suggest
that firms should promote company reputation and ethical standards. Engagement is heavily
influenced by organisational characteristics, including reputation for integrity (Corporate
Leadership Council, 2004) with people striving to find pride in their work, their performance
and their organisation (Seijts & Crim, 2006).
4.6. Designing Engagement InterventionsApproaches to designing engagement interventions, which should take into consideration key
antecedents to engagement, include benchmarking best practises, utilising practises from
literature, and formulating recommendations using internal task forces (Mahalingam, 2011).
However, in some cases well-intentioned forms of engagement actually lead to negative impacts
on organisational strategy and performance (ibid). This suggests that when engagement drivers
are designed and implemented without first being validated for their potential impact on
organisational performance, unexpected outcomes may arise (Mahalingam, 2011).
Engagement interventions can be classified in terms of organisational, job and individual level
interventions and some combination of these will be required in order to develop, embed and
sustain engagement across the organisation (Bakker, et al., 2011). However, the fact that
interventions can occur on multiple levels or an entire organisation increases the difficulty in
selecting appropriate interventions given that at each level, the number of people affected by an
intervention increases (Leiter & Maslach, 2010). Subsequently it is no surprise that many firms
struggle designing engagement interventions. One such example is a large software company
studied by Mahalingam (2011) that implemented “flexi time” as a key engagement driver
without testing or considering the implications of this decision. Over the next nine months
83
reliance on the flexi time became so heavy that the intervention meant to improve employee
engagement actually resulted in productivity falling by over sixty percent. HR’s assessment of
the situation lead to another invalid assumption with the general belief being that revoking the
flexi time would lead to even more negative consequences. Failing to validate the intervention
for potential impact resulted in the firm losing several key customers, which had subsequent
negative effect the organisation’s future prospects. This is in line with research Budeanu (2005)
which demonstrates that as a result of organisational differences, individual firms face unique
challenges in facilitating employee engagement, with no standard template able to determine
which specific policies and practises will have the greatest impact on performance.
Furthermore, within the organisation, different groups of employees are influenced by different
combinations of factors (ibid).
Therefore it is important to ask what kinds of interventions will be effective in building work
engagement (Leiter & Maslach, 2010). Organisations would do well to examine data and
evidence, taking into consideration medium and long-term views when suggesting engagement
interventions (Mahalingam, 2011). Insufficient consideration of interventions can result in
wasted or misdirected resources as well as frustration from stakeholders, including both
management and employees (ibid).
4.7. Evaluation Taxonomies for Engagement InterventionsWithin the literature, there exists a range of theoretically coherent and integrated systems of
organisational resources, antecedents, or drivers that help circumscribe the notion of a climate
for engagement. Examples of these taxonomies include Brown and Leigh’s (1996) psychological
climate dimensions (supportive management, clarity, contribution, recognition, self-expression,
and challenge), Riordan et al.’s (2005) ‘‘employee involvement climate’’ (participation,
information sharing and training, reward), and Lawler’s (1993) ‘‘high involvement work
practises’’ (participation/power/control, information, rewards, training/development). Bakker
et al. (2011) subsequently propose conceptualising employee engagement using the six areas of
work life as developed by Leiter and Maslach (1999), Maslach and Leiter (1997; 2008),
including: workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values. These classifications are
similar to dimensions of existing models and measures of organisational climate (e.g., Koys & de
Cotiis, 1991; Riordan, et al., 2005) and provide a cohesive set of dimensions that have been
previously linked both theoretically and empirically to burnout and engagement (e.g.,
Demerouti, et al., 2001; Leiter, et al., 2009).
Alternatively, Burke et al. (2009) suggest that the most commonly used measure of work
engagement is the model developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002), which comprises of three
84
components: vigour, dedication and absorption. Vigour is characterised by high levels of energy,
the willingness to invest energy in one’s work and persistence in difficult times; dedication is
characterised by high levels of work involvement and feelings of pride and challenge from one’s
work; and absorption is characterised by deep concentration in one’s work the sense that time
passes quickly and one is reluctant to leave their work. The accumulating research findings have
shown that the measures of the three engagement concepts developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002)
are reliable, stable and valid (see also: Schaufeli, et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007, 2008).
However, regardless of which strategy is implemented to enhance engagement, there exists
clear and ongoing need to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions across
a range of different contexts (Bakker, et al., 2011). Therefore, conventional evaluation
taxonomies assessing the impact of engagement interventions at the level of reaction, learning,
behaviour, outcomes, and return on investments can usefully be employed (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006).
4.7.1. The COR Theory and the JD-R ModelKaratepe and Olugbade (2009) suggest that antecedents to work engagement can be examined
using the COR theory and the JD-R model. The COR theory suggests that there are four types of
resources: objects, personal characteristics, conditions, and energies (Hobfoll, 1989). As
discussed by Hobfoll (2001), the first principle of COR theory contends that resource loss is
disproportionately more noticeable than resource gain. As a result, employees are more
sensitive to stressors in the workplace that threaten their resources (Shirom, 2003). The second
principle of the theory states “people must invest resources in order to protect against resource
loss, recover from losses, and gain resources” (Hobfoll, 2001, p. 349). Consequently, when
individuals have a number of resources, they are less susceptible to resource loss and are
therefore more capable of managing resource gain. Conversely, individuals with fewer
resources are more susceptible to resource loss and are subsequently less capable of having
resource gain (Hobfoll, 2001).
The JD–R model proposes that work characteristics can be divided into the two general
categories of job demands and job resources, of which the specific characteristics will vary for
every occupation (Bakker, et al., 2004; Demerouti, et al., 2001). Job demands refer to “physical,
psychological, social, or organisational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or
psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain
physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). Examples of job
demands include emotional demands, workload, work–family conflict, and emotional
dissonance (Bakker, et al., 2004; Xanthopoulou, et al., 2007). Alternatively, job resources are
“physical, psychological, social, or organisational aspects of the job that are either/or: functional
85
in achieving work goals, reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological
costs, and stimulate personal growth, learning, and development” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007,
p. 312). Examples consist of performance feedback, social support, participation in decision-
making, and job control (Bakker, et al., 2003; Demerouti, et al., 2001).
4.8. Conceptualisation of Employee Engagement and DisengagementHaving reviewed the extant literature on employee engagement and disengagement, both
generally and within the context of corporate social responsibility, the following conceptual
framework serves to provide the scope and structure of the research problem, positioning this
thesis within the broader literature. As demonstrated in Figure 4.2, the antecedents and
outcomes of employee engagement are relatively well documented. By comparison, employee
CSR engagement, employee disengagement, and employee CSR disengagement provide
opportunity for original contributions to knowledge.
Given that the aim of this research is to examine why employee engage in CSR interventions,
subsequent focus will be on the antecedents to employee CSR engagement and employee CSR
disengagement. While employee engagement in corporate social responsibility is often
discussed as an outcome, it is clear that there is a lack of understanding about what drives this
engagement. Organisations are subsequently challenged in operationalising corporate social
responsibility initiatives because there is a lack of understanding about specific drivers for CSR
engagement and disengagement.
86
Figure 4.2. Conceptual Framework for Engagement and DisengagementDeveloped by Author
The literature suggests that, at least in part, this lack of understanding may be attributable to
the tendency to examine corporate social responsibility and engagement from the
organisational, rather than individual level perspective. By examining CSR adoption and
dissemination from the bottom up, this research contributes understanding of employee CSR
engagement and disengagement, as it is these individuals who are responsible for disseminating
CSR in the daily working life of the organisation.
It is also interesting to note that by shifting focus to look at not just engagement, but also
disengagement, there is an opportunity to examine what Rupp and Mallory (2015) describe as
the “dark side of CSR”. Thus far within the extant literature, a lack of attention has been given to
the antecedents of disengagement. Research has a tendency to focus on engagement rather than
disengagement and thus, can overlook the negative effects of corporate social responsibility in
the workplace. Consequently, by exploring employee disengagement from corporate social
responsibility this research contributes to understanding of the unintended negative
consequences of CSR. It is therefore the intention of this thesis to provide insights into
disengagement that will enable the gaps in the conceptual model in Figure 4.2 to be addressed.
87
4.9. ConclusionThis chapter provides an overview of the extant literature on employee engagement. Critically,
within the discussion of employee engagement, a lack of focus on disengagement is highlighted.
Conflicting material on the issue of worker disengagement suggests that the topic has not yet
been systematically researched, which has key implications for the contributions to knowledge
developed by this thesis. Furthermore, in the discussion of antecedents a greater focus has been
placed on the measurement and analysis of symptomatic factors, rather than causal or
determining factors of disengagement. As a result, there is a limited understanding on the
antecedents of disengagement. This is a critical oversight given that there it remains unclear
from the literature if engagement and disengagement are indeed opposites.
Focusing specifically on employee engagement in corporate social responsibility, it is evident
that attention within the literature has been turned towards the numerous beneficial
organisational outcomes associated with employee CSR engagement. Nevertheless, despite clear
organisational benefits, little is known about the antecedents to CSR engagement. Most often,
engagement is discussed as a behavioural outcome with little attention given to the antecedents
that drive the state of engagement. The implications of this is that little is known about why,
how, and when employees are engaged by CSR (Glavas, 2016). An analysis of antecedents to
both employee engagement and disengagement thus forms a key contribution of this thesis.
There is a range of classifications for avenues of action when it comes to employee engagement.
These engagement interventions can be found at the organisational, job, and individual level. An
analysis of approaches to employee engagement demonstrates the diversity in methods
available as well diversity in the needs of individual employees. As a result, it becomes
increasingly clear that evaluation taxonomies for engagement are needed. In order to measure
engagement, a range of evaluation taxonomies, along with their challenges and merits, are
provided.
88
Chapter 5: Methodology
5.1. IntroductionFollowing an overview of the literature and the establishment of a theoretical and contextual
framework in previous chapters, this chapter outlines the research methodology adopted in
order to support the effective collection and analysis of data. A methodological map outlining
key elements of this methodology is provided in Table 5.1. Following this, the research question
and objectives are revisited. This is followed by a discussion of research philosophy and
approaches taken and their overall implications for this study. Data collection methods used for
this research are subsequently discussed, with particular focus placed on the merits of multiple
case studies and semi-structured interviews. Following this, an overview of the qualitative data
analysis techniques employed is provided. Lastly, ethical considerations are given. Critical
challenges of access associated with collecting sensitive data are also discussed.
Table 5.1. Methodological Map
Res
earc
h Ph
iloso
phy Ontological Subjectivism
Epistemological Interpretivism
Res
earc
h A
ppro
ach
Inductive
Res
earc
h D
esig
n
Methodological Choice
Qualitative
Nature of research design
Exploratory
Res
earc
h M
etho
ds, D
ata
Colle
ctio
n an
d A
naly
sis
Research Methods InterviewsSemi-Structured Interviews
SamplingNon- probability Sampling (Volunteer)
Self-Selection
Analysis Qualitative Analysis Thematic Analysis
5.2. Research Aims and ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to determine how employees engage in CSR interventions
using three multinational hospitality and tourism organisations operating out of the UK as a context .
Specifically, it sought to understand differences in employee engagement amongst individual
89
employees while identifying factors that contribute to engagement in CSR, as well as factors
contributing to the disengagement of hard to reach employees who are detached from
organisational CSR efforts. To do so, it explored the subjective experience of employee
engagement in corporate social responsibility by adopting both a retrospective and prospective
approach. Looking backwards, employees were questioned about CSR interventions that have
taken place within their organisations. Employees were also asked about how CSR interventions
might look moving forward. Employee responses were then used to evaluate existing practises
as well as ways in which employee CSR engagement might be improved.
Research Question: In what context do employees engage in CSR interventions in multinational
tourism and hospitality organisations?
In order to answer this research question, the following objectives have been set:
1. To critique managerial practises used to engage employees in CSR interventions
2. To identify factors influencing employees’ decisions to engage in CSR interventions
3. To critically analyse factors preventing employees from engaging in CSR interventions
4. To identify ways to engage those employees who are otherwise not engaged in CSR
practises
5.3. Research PhilosophyThe research philosophy informs the way in which knowledge is interpreted by the researcher
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Consequently, the philosophical assumptions upon which this research
has been based has implications for both the methods adopted, as well as the results. Cohen et
al. (2000) suggest that the nature of social reality sits at ‘opposite poles’, commonly labelled as
either subjective or objective. Ontological positioning therefore determines if the reality under
investigation is external to the individual, therefore objective, or is generated by an individual’s
consciousness and therefore subjective (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). This research has adopted a
subjectivist view, which asserts, “social phenomena are created from the perceptions and
consequent actions of social actors” (Saunders, et al., 2012, p. 111).
To justify the selection of a subjectivist view, it is important to consider the focus of the research
and the phenomena under investigation. This focus involves the subjective experience of
individuals engaging in corporate social responsibility, with the research therefore concerned
with how employees themselves are constructing reality and crafting meaning in their constant
definition of the situation. To this end, social reality is arguably generated from within and not
independent or externally created, supporting this research’s subjective ontological approach.
90
As a result, a subjectivist view enables the researcher to understand phenomena through the
eyes of those being observed (Pettigrew, 2000).
Following ontological assumptions, epistemology forms the second key philosophical stance
adopted within research. Noticeably shaped by the ontological opinion taken, epistemology, or
the theory of knowledge, considers “how we know what we know, what justifies us in believing
what we do, and what standards of evidence we should use in seeking truths about the world
and human experience” (Audi, 2010, p. 8). For this research, an interpretivist approach was
taken, emphasising the importance of recognising the differences between humans in our role
as social actors (Saunders, et al., 2009). Interpretivists view reality as a socially constructed
concept, meaning that knowledge is grounded in experience and is constantly changing, as
social reality is non-static (Kelliher, 2011). This research depends on the richness of subjective
social phenomena that has no external reality including experiences, feelings, behaviour, and
attitudes. As a result, the belief that reality is created and re-created through social interactions
and is context dependent (Saunders, et al., 2009; Waugh, 1999) makes an interpretivist
approach particularly fitting for this research. In its exploration of employee engagement and
CSR interventions, the researcher recognised that people within the same organisation interpret
the concept of CSR differently[ CITATIOn Fab05 ] and that expectations, views and attitudes are
not homogenous and vary amongst employees (Glavas & Piderit, 2009; Rodrigo & Arenas,
2008).
Contrasting positivism, interpretivism is fitting in that it does not strive to explain phenomena
in order to predict and control them but instead focuses on understanding and interpretation
(Phillimore & Goodson, 2004). Interpretivism does not attempt to predict the social world or
test hypothesis; rather, the aim is to develop theory based on observation (Shipman, 1997).
Interpretivism endeavours to comprehend the meaningfulness of human action and the social
reality within which humans exist (O'Reilly, 2009). Thus in this context, interpretivism is an
appropriate position as research was conducted amongst people, not objects. In addition,
interpretivism was appropriate for the research question because rather than reducing
observations to law like generalisations, this research philosophy supports the procurement of
rich insights into the complexities of real life dilemmas.
5.3.1. ReflexivityIn addition, the epistemological position of interpretivism is suited to the qualitative research
methods used for this research because it acknowledges reflexivity, the inherent influence of
subjects and researchers on the study situation (Shipman, 1997). Reflexivity provides an
approach to research in which the researcher is engaged in the processes, interpreting findings
and drawing conclusions, yet acknowledging and addressing the researchers’ own effect
91
(Malterud, 2001). Specifically, reflexivity is argued to provide value in tourism research as it
lends itself to participation, observation and communication (Hall, 2004).
However, in research, participation, observation and communication can often be characterised
by issues of power. Aléx and Hammarström (2008) suggest that both interviewer and
interviewee will act in certain ways according to their perception of each other’s power.
Consequently in acknowledging the researchers’ own effect and reflecting on the power
considerations during data collection, it is possible that due to the sensitivity of corporate social
responsibility and employee engagement (see also Section 5.7.2), interviewees might
subsequently view the interviewer as having greater power in the research relationship.
Furthermore, this research suggests that in addition to issues relating to age, education, gender,
ethnicity and theoretical position as identified in the literature, the perceived ethical position of
the interviewer may also be seen to influence interview dynamics. Disengaged employees in
particular, repeatedly made reference to the ethical standpoint of the researcher in relation to
CSR and sustainability.
Consequently, due to their involvement, qualitative researchers must be aware of their role in
the co-construction of knowledge as research becomes a joint product of participants,
researcher and the participant-researcher relationship (Finlay, 2002). Furthermore, some
variants in reflexivity, particularly reflexivity as mutual collaboration, suggest that in addition to
recognising the researcher’s own reflexivity, research participants also have the capacity to be
reflexive (ibid). Reflexivity as mutual collaboration is the taxonomy adopted by this research,
with considerations made for the reflexive nature of both the researcher and participants
during the deconstruction of the research encounter. Considerations have been made for the
reflexive nature of both the research and participants during the deconstruction of the research
encounter.
5.4. Research ApproachThere are two key research approaches that may be adopted in order to help the researcher
arrive at a conclusion, namely a deductive approach or an inductive approach. A deductive
approach moves from the more general to the more specific, while an inductive approach works
in the opposite direction from more specific observations to broader generalisations. This
research is therefore inductive, as the aim is not to test specific premises or hypothesis in order
to arrive at a conclusion, but rather to reach the conclusion by making sense of the observations
made. This research augments preliminary findings with an in-depth understanding of
employee experiences that enables the development of a framework for the successful design
and implementation of CSR practises, as well as elicits the factors that may contribute to its
92
successful implementation. Making sense of collected data contributes to the generation of new
models and theories (Lichman, 2013) and subsequently enables this research to contribute to
both theory and practise of employee CSR engagement.
5.5. Research StrategyDevising an appropriate research strategy is dependent on the requirements specified by the
research aims and objectives. Although, this may appear pragmatic in nature, methodology and
strategy are also informed by ontology and epistemology (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). In line with
a personal constructivist research philosophy, a qualitative methodology is seen as the most
appropriate pathway for achieving both research goals (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Although the
research follows an inductive approach from the outset, that is to generate theory or hypotheses
from un-confined observations and findings, Saunders et al. (2012) argue that much qualitative
research is in fact abductive as it follows an iterative process. The line between both approaches
is very fine and Bryman and Bell (2011) suggest that even in inductive, qualitative studies,
theory often informs the observations and findings.
This research adopts a qualitative approach using interview data collected from three case
study organisations. This is well suited to the epistemological stance adopted with
interpretivism recognised as being integral to the qualitative tradition (Snape & Spencer, 2003).
A variety of research approaches have been used within the literature to explore the
relationship between CSR and employees, including conceptual, literature based reviews (e.g.
Caldwell, et al., 2012; Yuan, et al., 2011), third party surveys (e.g. Collier & Esteban, 2007), and
empirical studies such as those by Miles et al. (2006) and Turker (2009a; 2009b). There are a
small number of studies that have employed qualitative methods, often small-scale and
involving case studies supported by interview data (Duarte & Neves, 2010; Rodrigo & Arenas,
2008), such as this study has.
5.5.1. Case study RationalA qualitative case study approach was deemed appropriate for this research for a number of
reasons. Firstly, case study research is defined as a “study in which (a) one case (single case
study) or a small number of cases (comparative case study) in their real life context are
selected, and (b) scores obtained from these cases are analysed in a qualitative manner” (Dul
and Hak, 2008, p. 4). This research examines a number of cases in their real life context (within
organisational head offices), with the object of study (employee engagement) having occurred
in reality and without manipulation. This is considered a distinctive characteristic of case study
research (Robson, 2002; Yin, 2003). Data is also analysed in a qualitative manner using visual
inspection, rather than statistical analysis, as is illustrated in Section 5.6. Furthermore, in
addition to the parameters set by Dul and Hak (2008), this research meets a number of
93
additional characteristics common to case study research including: in-depth investigation
(Gerring and Cojocaru, 2016); an inability of the researcher to control events (Yin, 2013);
research answering ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (ibid); and multi-level inference where case
study evidence is drawn from different levels of analysis (Gerring, 2017).
Secondly, case studies are particularly well suited to pragmatic research as they are able to deal
with complex operational links that cannot be adequately examined using other research
paradigms, such as experiment and survey (Yin, 1994). Answering ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions
means that case studies are ideally suited to creating managerially relevant knowledge
(Amabile et al., 2001; Leonard-Barton, 1990) and thus typically deal with real management
situations (Gibbert et al., 2008). Case studies are therefore able to satisfy research aims that
include the extension of experience and an increase in understanding (Stake, 1983).
Furthermore, case study research is particularly useful when concepts are ill-defined (Gall et al.,
2007; Maon et al., 2009), such as with corporate social responsibility and employee
engagement, which are both characterised by a plurality of definitions and interpretations.
Finally, case study research is consistent with a number of comparable studies that have been
conducted in the area of corporate social responsibility and employee engagement (see, for
example, Duarte, 2010; Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008; Slack and Corlett, 2015). It is considered an
extremely effective method for knowledge generation for organisational related phenomena,
such as employee engagement, in a number of different disciplines, including both psychology
and business (Yin, 2013), which are of direct relevance to this research. Case studies are also
used extensively in tourism research (Beeton, 2005, p. 37) as they are able to address the
“holistic-inductive paradigms of tourism research”, demonstrating a level of flexibility difficult
to find in alternative research methods (Jennings, 2010).
The case study approach adopted by this research focuses on the use of specific contexts for
understanding practice. Unlike a full-scale deconstructive analysis of the organisation as a single
entity, the case study organisations within this research are used to provide a setting for the
research question. The intention is therefore not to compare and contrast case study contexts
but rather to use these three specific organisations to understand the complexities of employee
engagement and disengagement within tourism and hospitality. The interview data is therefore
gathered specifically within these hospitality and tourism organisations, rather than from
employees across a broad spectrum of different organisations. While some differences will arise
and these will be noted, a comparison of these differences is not the purpose of case study
research in this instance.
94
5.5.2. Semi-Structured InterviewsTo meet the study objectives, in-depth interviews were selected as the most appropriate
method, enabling the researcher to gain insights into those factors which influence individual
employees’ decisions to engage in corporate social responsibility, as well as to critically analyse
those factors which drive some employees to be disengaged from organisational CSR. The
adaptable nature of in-depth interviews assisted in the procurement of rich and meaningful
data (Saunders, et al., 2012) with fifty-five in-depth interviews conducted across all three
multinational tourism and hospitality organisations. As indicated in Table 5.2., interviews were
held with a range of employees including: management, CSR champions, engaged employees,
and disengaged employees, and industry professionals. Notably, this research concentrates
specifically on head office employees, rather than front line staff. Head office employees are
responsible for communicating organisational values to stakeholders as well for as setting
precedent for expected ethical behaviour across the organisation. The headquarter/subsidiary
relationship is central to the CSR strategies of multinational corporations (Cruz & Pedrozo,
2009) and employees who observe strongly encouraging signals on the part of their company
are more likely to adopt a pro-sustainable behaviour (Ramus & Steger, 2000). Consequently,
understanding employee CSR engagement with head office employees can contribute to the
dissemination of CSR across the organisation.
Due to the semi-structured nature of the interviews, interview design enabled employees to
speak widely on corporate social responsibility as it provided a greater degree of flexibility
within key themes, questions and order, which were able to flow within the context of each
interview (Saunders, et al., 2009). Consequently, participants were able to explore issues that
they felt were they felt were important, thus providing the research with a broader view on
engagement in CSR interventions. Employees were asked to discuss both existing CSR
interventions as well as speculate on ideal intervention design, with the research subsequently
benefiting from being both backward looking, allowing employees to evaluate existing
interventions, as well as forwards looking by drawing on the thoughts and experiences of
employees to determine an improved design for CSR engagement (see Table 5.2.).
In order to gain background information for this research, interviews were first conducted with
managers from each organisation that are involved in sustainability efforts. These interviews
provided clarity on the sustainability context for each organisation and offered a critical
opportunity for the researcher to investigate further, problem solve and gather additional data
(Patton, 2002). The aim of the interviews was to gain a greater understanding of how CSR
interventions were designed, selected and performed and to explore managerial practises used
to engage employees in CSR interventions. It provides an opportunity to critique the
95
sustainability platform from which initiatives are developed. Understanding management views
on sustainability is important as these individuals ultimately “account for what happens to the
organisation” (Hambrick, 1989, p. 5) due to the decisions they are empowered to make. As
champions for change that are actively involved in the sustainability agenda, questions for these
individual explored the influence of leadership on organisational culture (Harris & Crane, 2002),
their ability to facilitate employee empowerment (Daily & Huang, 2001), and to institute
systems to promote desired behaviour (Collier & Esteban, 2007).
Following semi-structured interviews with management, interviews were conducted with
employees who had participated in organisational CSR interventions. While Saunders et al.
(2012) suggest a minimum sample size of 5-25 for semi-structured interviews, the number is
ultimately self-determined based on department size and overall employee participation and
when data saturation is reached. Initially, a snowball technique was used to identify
participants. This non-probability sampling technique works like a chain referral with the initial
subject helping to identify people with a similar trait of interest. This approach is particularly
useful when individuals are hard to identify (Miller, 2003), such as with employees who were
disengaged from CSR efforts and may therefore be less willing to self-identify. Furthermore, this
96
Table 5.2. Data Collection Reference Guide
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
F
OR
WA
RD
LO
OK
ING
B
ACK
WA
RD
S LO
OK
ING
INTERVIEWS
WITH
MANAGERS
Interviews(n = 3)
1. To critique managerial practises used to engage
employees in CSR interventions
2. To identify factors influencing employees’ decisions
to engage in CSR activities
3. To critically analyse factors preventing employees
from engaging in CSR interventions
4. To identify ways to engage those employees who
are otherwise not engaged in CSR practises
INTERVIEWS
WITH CSR
CHAMPIONS
Interviews(n = 12)
INTERVIEWS
WITH ENGAGED
EMPLOYEES
Interviews(n = 20)
INTERVIEWS
WITH INDUSTRY
PROFESSIONALS
Interviews(n = 6)
INTERVIEWS
WITH
DISENGAGED
EMPLOYEES
Interviews(n = 14)
choice was driven by the realistic constraints of time available to conduct fieldwork and collect
data as well as the impossibility and size of task to gain access to an entire population.
However, organisations expressed concern over ‘naming and shaming’ due to potential negative
stigmas associated with a lack of CSR engagement. Paradoxically, two of the organisations
explicitly engaged in their own ‘naming and shaming’, posting the printing records of employees
and broadly communicating employees’ poor pro-sustainable behaviour throughout the
organisation. Nevertheless, as a result of this hesitation, for this thesis self-selection was used
and organisational contacts utilised personal networks to secure interviews. This resulted in a
lack of control over interviewee participants by the researcher and highlighted the difficulty of
involving corporate social responsibility teams in the evaluation of CSR engagement, issues that
are discussed further in Section 5.7.1.
Subsequently, for the third case study organisation an alternative sampling strategy was
employed. While a non-probability, purposive, and volunteer based sampling approach was also
adopted, the strategy changed by asking employees if they had or had not participated in a
single CSR intervention within the organisation. From those employees who did not participate
in this one intervention, employees were identified that were disengaged from corporate social
responsibility more generally.
In order to ensure that relevant and useable data were collected, a semi-structured interview
schedule was developed. The schedule contained a list of relevant issues and corresponding
questions to guide the conversation. It also contained specific prompts, discussion openers and
closers along with other relevant information. However, despite use of the guide, there were
also occasions when questions were added or excluded depending on the flow of the interview.
Furthermore, though a predetermined set of interview themes was prepared, the flexible nature
of semi-structured interviews allowed them to unfold in a more conversation like manner
(Longhurst, 2010). This approach offers participants the chance to explore issues that they feel
are important and will enable the research to gain a broader view on engagement in CSR
interventions. Individual semi-structured interviews also contributed to the person-centric
focus of this research, as employees were able to discuss their own subjective experience
engaging in corporate social responsibility.
Reflecting on conversations with respondents, it was immediately clear that engaged employees
saw, at least on the surface, very little which would hamper engagement. Even prior to analysis,
interview notes frequently highlighted the blind belief of some employees in their organisations
corporate social responsibility. However, by probing about what ‘others’ might find problematic
97
with CSR, conversation shifted to the challenges of pro-sustainable behaviour. This approach
helped to minimise social desirability bias, which is discussed further in Section 5.7.2.
Despite the insistence of engaged employees that there were no barriers to engagement, many
disengaged employees found reasons not to participate in CSR in the workplace. Indeed, a
number of disengaged employees expressed gratitude at being provided the opportunity to
voice their concerns about corporate social responsibility. Further, many concluded their
interviews saying what an enjoyable experience it had been, which suggests that the
interviewer was successful in building trust and rapport during the interview sessions.
5.6. Organisational ContextOrganisations pursue corporate social responsibility for a range of reasons and in a variety of
different ways. This section therefore serves to provide context about the organisations studied,
offering an overview of each organisations’ approach to corporate social responsibility. Due to
issues of anonymity, the overview of each organisation refers broadly to the organisations’
approaches to CSR rather than stating specific, identifying elements of the organisations’
corporate social responsibility strategies. Nevertheless, though broad, this section provides
contextual factors influencing the development and subsequent engagement of CSR within the
organisation, thus framing the responses of employees examined in subsequent chapters.
In order to better understand and critically analyse employee responses, further context is
given by assigning pseudonyms to each employee that correspond with the letter assigned to
each organisation (e.g. Abigail is an employee in Organisation A; Barry is an employee in
Organisation B). In order to give a clearer voice to employees and to contextualise employee
responses, additional details regarding respondents have also been provided (e.g. current level
of engagement). However, a more complete profile of respondents has been excluded from this
thesis for two key reasons. First, to provide this level of information would compromise the
anonymity of respondents. Secondly, there were no significant differences found with regard to
age, tenure, etc., with the main significant differences found in the differences between engaged
and disengaged employees as a general whole.
Each of the cases selected for this thesis have published explicit statements about the
organisation and it’s employees’ responsibilities toward CSR, as well as creating policies and
practices to encourage the engagement and empowerment of employees in pro-sustainable
behaviour. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that employees within these organisations will
engage widely with corporate social responsibility initiatives and thus, the organisations serve
as interesting cases for examining employee engagement with CSR. Furthermore, in
98
organisations with strong CSR policies and practice, the presence of disengaged employees
within the case studies provides an opportunity to examine ineffective outcomes of CSR policy,
as well as the unintended consequences of corporate responsibility.
The three companies studied are all based in the United Kingdom and were chosen as
exemplary examples of CSR practice within hospitality and tourism. Each has received industry
recognition based on their corporate responsibility efforts and engage in a range of activities
including: sustainable supply chain management, environmental initiatives, corporate
fundraising and philanthropy, stakeholder engagement, education and training. Though the
organisations are from different sectors within the same industry (i.e. one hotel operator and
two tour operators), the three organisations share important similarities. Firstly, human
resources, the key focus of this study, are similar in both hospitality and tourism; the labour
markets for both are dynamic and characterised by diversity, which ultimately impacts the
management and retention of talent within the industry (Baum, 2008). Secondly, the
organisational context remains similar because this thesis is focused on the examination of head
office, rather than frontline, employees. By studying the CSR engagement of head office
employees there are similarities amongst head office CSR initiatives, which may have otherwise
differed between individual hotels and amongst tour operators abroad. Furthermore,
respondents come from the same types of departments (e.g. finance, product development,
marketing), have similar job responsibilities, and thus are exposed to CSR in similar ways.
Finally, as the case study organisations are all based out of the UK, geographical location
remains consistent.
For the first organisation, referred to as Organisation A, its corporate social responsibility
strategy has adopted Porter and Kramer’s (2011) “shared value” perspective. A shared value
strategy focuses on finding business opportunities in social problems and thus, on their
corporate website, the organisation highlights collaborative opportunities that have been
identified within both the environment and the community. As part of their commitment to
responsible business and creating shared values, the organisation has developed a range of
corporate sustainability objectives relating to social and environmental goals, as well as
sustainable supply chain management. Specifically, CSR materialises through sustainable
product development, community involvement, philanthropy, and environmental initiatives.
Because shared value is driven by strategic business, rather than purely ethical motives, this
approach to corporate responsibility may influence employee CSR perceptions and engagement.
Stakeholder engagement is mentioned explicitly both on the organisation’s website and in their
CSR report. Employee engagement in CSR is voluntary with corporate social responsibility not
99
part of the formal work-related contractual activities for the majority of employees.
Nevertheless, as a result of a strong CSR focused organisational culture, there are both
managerial and peer pressure to participate in corporate responsibility initiatives.
Furthermore, within organisational CSR policy, employees are specifically identified as playing
a critical role in CSR adoption and dissemination. This has key implications for engagement, as
does the framing of employee engagement within the organisation’s CSR strategy to suggest
that the main role of these individuals in relation to CSR is their ability to enhance the
reputation of the organisation. Within the findings, focus on employee engagement in relation to
CSR and reputation is demonstrated to play a key role in the development of corporate culture
at Organisation A, as well as in the communication of CSR and employees’ subsequent
understanding of organisational corporate responsibility.
While the strategy of this organisation is focused on reputation and organisational
competitiveness, improving the bottom line is not the only motivation for CSR, with some
executives demonstrating genuine care about increased environmentally, culturally and
economically sustainable business practices (Vogel, 2005). Indeed, leadership plays a critical
role in CSR adoption and dissemination and for the second organisation, Organisation B, the
development of a strong CSR strategy is largely attributed to organisational leadership.
Contrasting Organisation A, this organisation emphasises the role of leaders and leadership in
shaping a sustainable future for the tourism and hospitality industry. Indeed, it is a message
from the CEO discussing the role of corporate social responsibility within the organisation that
forms the introduction to Organisation A’s sustainability strategy. C-Suite support for corporate
social responsibility and an emphasis on pro-sustainable leadership subsequently influences the
implementation of corporate responsibility initiatives and the CSR message that is
communicated to employees.
Lastly, Organisation C has a long-established CSR policy and strategy with corporate social
responsibility integrated throughout the organisation, rather than confined to a specific team or
department. The management of sustainability issues has been built into the mainstream
strategic agenda, addressing product management, purchasing, destination services, customer
and brands, product development, and distribution. Interestingly, of the three case studies,
Organisation C is the only one to explicitly discusses corporate responsibility in the head office,
identifying the CSR policies and system that are engrained into daily business operations, rather
than operations more generally. It is possible that this approach to CSR has implications for the
way that corporate social responsibilities are implemented within the organisation, affecting the
behaviour, communication, and understanding of employees.
100
5.7. Data Analysis Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 10) contend “the strengths of qualitative data rest very centrally
on the competence with which their analysis is carried out”. Subsequently a number of steps
were taken in order to ensure that data analysis was conducted in the most thorough and
competent manner. Interviews, which were audio recorded, were first transcribed into
Microsoft Word document format. A full word-by-word transcription of each interview was
conducted in order to ensure that transcripts effectively captured the rich detail emerging from
the discussions.
Once transcribed, data were ‘tidied up’ which, as Romagnano (1991) suggests, is a critical first
step in analysis. Qualitative data sets often have no intrinsic organisational structure or
meaning by which to explain the events under study (LeCompte, 2000), thus demanding that
researchers create structure to impose on the data. In order to do so, LeCompte (2000) outlines
several necessary steps including: making copies of data, putting field notes and interviews in
order of their date of creation; organising, cataloguing and storing documents; reviewing and
comparing research questions against data collected; identifying missing data; and, if necessary,
collecting additional data to address these gaps or providing rational as to information for these
gaps has not been collected. As part of this, removing all name and place references that would
allow readers to make inferences about the person’s identity enabled the anonymisation of
transcripts.
Employees were subsequently categorised based on their level of engagement. Though it was
originally anticipated that engaged employees would emerge as those who were currently or
had previously participated in CSR and disengaged employees to constitute those who did not
participate in corporate responsibility interventions at work, it became increasingly clear that
engagement was fluid and often context dependent. As a result, employees were seen to engage
in CSR interventions, despite being disengaged from organisational CSR (e.g. an employee that
sung for charity fundraisers because he enjoyed singing, despite disliking corporate
fundraising). Similarly, engaged employees participated in some but not necessarily all CSR
interventions. This reflects the mobile and context dependent nature of engagement and further
contributes to understanding that engagement falls across a spectrum with a number of factors
influencing individual employees willingness to engage in corporate social responsibility.
Furthermore, the lack of control identified in securing interviews resulted in one organisation
arranging interviews with individuals whom were identified as disengaged but were in fact
keen participants of the organisation’s CSR. In response, the researcher classified respondents
as engaged or disengaged based on the subsequent interview, rather than how they were
101
defined and categorised by the organisation itself. Employees were identified as engaged if
largely keen on organisational CSR and as disengaged if they had not or no longer participated
in CSR or if opposed to CSR practice within the organisation, despite being occasionally involved
in corporate responsibility interventions.
In order to ensure the reliability and validity of data and its interpretation, triangulation, which
is a hallmark of case study research (Dul and Hak, 2008), was achieved by gathering data from
multiple perspectives, together yielding a more complete picture of employee CSR engagement.
Specifically, data from recorded in-depth interviews, analysis of company reports and other
documents, and field notes taken throughout the research process were triangulated. This
subsequently enabled more accurate comparisons to be drawn from results and more solid
theory to be elaborated from the numerous aspects of the situation under study (Eisenhardt,
1989; Goulding, 2002; Orlikowski, 1993; Patton, 2002; Pettigrew, 1990; Yin, 2003).
Reviewing field notes, interviews, and text to identify any items relevant to the research
question enabled the identification of units of analysis (LeCompte, 2000). Once these units of
analysis have been identified, they require organising into groups or categories by comparing
and contrasting items (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Constant comparison analysis is a common form
of analysis for qualitative data (Rawal, 2006) and therefore a valuable tool in the analysis of
interview data. Also referred to as coding, constant comparison analysis is useful in identifying
underlying themes across an entire data set. As suggested by Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007, p.
566), “constant comparison can be undertaken deductively (e.g., codes are identified prior to
analysis and then looked for in the data), inductively (e.g., codes emerge from the data), or
abductively (i.e., codes emerge iteratively)”.
This research adopted an inductive method, drawing commonalities from the data. To do so,
data were organised into categories based on themes and the relationship between concepts
subsequently explored. This process was initially undertaken by hand, in order to develop
familiarity with the data. However, due to the quantity of data acquired, subsequent analysis
was conducted in NVivo. Within NVivo, full transcripts were examined line by line to identify
information pertinent to the research question. Identifying commonalities or abnormalities
arising during data transcription and analysis subsequently contributed to the development of
themes. Comparisons and contradictions were explored between individual employees as well
as between interview groups, such as between engaged and disengaged employees. Due to the
quantity of data examined, themes were frequently evaluated to see if there were themes and
subthemes that could be combined. By analysing these themes it was possible to develop theory
from data (Jennings, 2010). Thus for this project, qualitative data analysis involved transcribing
102
interviews, establishing codes, transforming codes into themes, sorting material by theme and
examining material for meaningful patterns.
5.8. Research Ethics and AccessResearch ethics, as defined by Saunders et al. (2009), is the appropriateness of the researcher’s
behaviour in relation to ethical considerations arising from research topic formulation and
design; gaining access; collecting, processing, storing and analysing data; and writing up
findings. In order to address the aforementioned considerations and to maintain the integrity of
this research, steps were taken to create a methodologically sound and morally defensible
research design and conduct.
Given that the research enquiry involved the participation of people, of critical importance was
confidentiality and anonymity (Longhurst, 2010). To enable the employees to speak freely
about their views on their organisation’s CSR, the researcher assured all participants of both
their own anonymity as well as of their organisation within the overall study, the details of
which were outlined in the information and consent form provided to employees. Participants
were also informed that they had the right to withdraw from the research at any time without
explanation. Furthermore, pseudonyms were provided and transcriptions were anonymised by
removing all name or place references that would allow readers to make inferences about both
the interviewees’ and organisation’s identity. It was also explained that the research was not
being conducted as part of company CSR dissemination and that data would only be used for
this research.
Furthermore, because this research involves human informants and the collection of data that
may be personal in nature, an application for ethics was submitted and approved by the
University of Surrey ethical committee.
5.8.1. AccessOne of the greatest challenges of this research project was obtaining access to the research site.
A series of issues were faced surrounding access to the case study organisations, despite having
been granted ethical approval from the University and having been given access from each of
the organisations themselves. As is common of in-depth studies, a considerable amount of time
was spent on this task. However, due to the sensitive nature of sustainability and employee
engagement (see Section 5.7.2), obtaining access was only made more difficult. As a result of
these difficulties, data collection, which was initially scheduled over three months, subsequently
took closer to twelve months. This created a great deal of difficulty for the researcher who was
tasked with finding creative solutions to data collection order to penetrate the question
effectively.
103
Critically, as part of this, data collection expanded to include a third organisation in order to
allow the researcher to fully explore the research question and achieve data saturation. The
inclusion of a third organisation was also accompanied by the addition of a series of six
interviews with a range of industry professionals whose insight provided greater context for the
adoption of responsible behaviour within the industry as well as to discuss more openly those
challenges faced by organisations when addressing issues of corporate social responsibility and
disengagement. Though to the detriment to the original data collection schedule, the addition of
a third case study organisation and industry interviews provided greater perspective on the
topic, increased access to disengaged employees, and ultimately, data saturation.
Throughout this period of negotiation and data collection, detailed field notes were collected, an
account of which is provided below. From a reflexive aspect, it is interesting to discuss how
challenges of access affected the research. Consequently, though many researchers do not
describe their fieldwork practise, with exception for ethnography-based research, a reflective
account is provided here in order to highlight the impact of research access not only on this
particular study but also on corporate social responsibility and employee engagement research
more generally.
Gatekeepers are pivotal throughout the research process (Tushman & Katz, 1980) and for the
two original case study organisations, gatekeepers were initially keen to participate in the
research. Indeed, one organisation had approached the University to express their interest in
participating. Perhaps initial enthusiasm was fuelled by an interest in the research findings, as a
result of the organisations being selected as best examples, or perhaps to maintain good
relations with the University. Nevertheless, the gatekeeper relationship is recognised as being
fraught with difficulties and inconsistencies (Wiles, 2013) and as is demonstrated below, after
the initial round of data collection with engaged employees, CSR champions, and management,
the organisations’ willingness wavered when it came to providing access to disengaged
employees. This emphasises the description utilised throughout this thesis identifying those
employees who are disengaged from organisational CSR as “hard to reach”.
The first point of contact for both of these companies was a senior member of the sustainability
department. For one organisation, gatekeeper responsibilities were quickly transferred to a
contact from the CSR team. This remained the research contact until this individual left the
organisation and a new contact was provided. Notably, this individual was new to both the role
and the organisation. For the second organisation, the original contact organised initial
interviews with engaged employees. However, when it came to arranging interviews with
disengaged employees, gatekeeper responsibilities were transferred to a new person on the CSR
104
team. This reflects Crowhurst’s (2013, p. 457) assertions that gatekeepers are not “monolithic,
neutral, and static figures” as they are frequently portrayed in textbooks, which “muddies the
water” and obscures the “complex dynamics in which gatekeeping is operationalised, and
multiple ways in which gatekeepers impact upon the research process”. It required the
researcher to develop new relationships with the gatekeepers, a sometimes time consuming
process, and emphasised the position of the researcher as having limited control and direct
access to respondents. Indeed, this lack of control resulted in one organisation arranging
interviews with individuals whom were identified as disengaged but were in fact keen
participants of the organisation’s CSR. In response, the researcher classified interviewees as
engaged or disengaged based on the subsequent interview, rather than how they were defined
and categorised by the organisation itself.
In addition to challenges faced by the researcher in managing gatekeepers and interviewees, the
data collection process challenged the gatekeepers themselves. In particular, a snowball
technique and self-selection using gatekeeper networks require the gatekeepers to have some
degree of familiarity with which employees within the organisation were engaged or
disengaged. Furthermore, the power and authority associated with a gatekeeper’s job role
impacts their ability to secure interviews within an organisation. This issue was only
exacerbated by the fact that these gatekeepers were part of the Corporate Social Responsibility
team and employees were potentially hesitant to identify themselves to these individuals given
that the interview topic had potential to criticise the work of this team. In contrast, the third
organisation had two key contacts, both of who remained involved throughout the research
process, were well established and highly ranked within the organisation, and were not directly
involved in a corporate social responsibility team.
Along with the appropriateness of gatekeepers, it is important to ascertain whether the host
community sees the researcher as an expert and thus someone to be welcomed or a critic and
very unwelcome (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). Having selected the case study organisations
based on ‘best case’ criteria, the researcher hoped to be positioned more towards the expert
status rather than the critic. However, corporate social responsibility can be a politically
charged topic and relates to issues of image, brand, and reputation. Organisations
understandably feel cautious of external researchers, particularly if asking questions that are
considered sensitive or awkward. As one interviewee suggested, it can be difficult for
organisations to bring to focus those employees who do not share organisational values. This is
particularly true for organisations such as those involved in this research that have based
organisational culture, brand, and value systems on pro-sustainable behaviour. Consequently,
105
though the research focus was on employee CSR engagement, it is clear that issues of
engagement with CSR more generally arise at the organisational, as well as individual level.
5.8.2. Sensitive InformationIt is recognised within the literature that specific challenges occur when dealing with sensitive
topics, with participant discomfort particularly relevant to qualitative studies (Rimando, et al.,
2015). However, there is some controversy regarding the definition or identification of what
constitutes a sensitive research topic (Elmir, et al., 2011), with the literature tending to focus on
those topics which are more clearly considered to be sensitive (ex. health care, child abuse, sex
and sexuality, rape). Nevertheless, Lee and Renzetti (1990) argue that while some topics may be
more likely to cause distress than others, it is possible for any topic to be sensitive. McCosker et
al. (2001) suggest that within specific cultural and social contexts, a variety of phenomena are
can be considered “sensitive”. Consequently, as became clear in this research, for organisations
that pride themselves on corporate social responsibility focused cultures and ethos, CSR and
employee engagement and disengagement can be sensitive topics.
This is fitting with the characterisation of sensitive topics by Cowles (1988) who describes
sensitive topics as those that have the potential to elicit powerful emotional responses
including: anger, sadness, embarrassment, fear, and anxiety. Indeed, CSR and sustainability are
emotionally laden concepts (Mnguni, 2010; Onkila, 2015). Supported by a growing body of
research on employee reactions to CSR (e.g. Gond, et al., 2007; Lee, et al., 2013; Rupp, et al.,
2006; Rupp, et al., 2013c), it is increasingly evident that corporate social responsibility can elicit
a strong emotional response. Recognising this, adjustments were made to increase participants’
level of comfort during data collection. The researcher left time at the beginning of interviews to
develop rapport and chat more casually before beginning interview questions, easing the
comfort level between the participant and the researcher. The researcher was also open about
their own challenges engaging in pro-sustainable behaviour change, effectively humanising the
researcher and destigmatising disengagement from pro-sustainable behaviour. This was an
important step in reducing social desirability bias, which is understood to be the tendency of
individuals to deny socially undesirable traits and behaviour and admit only to socially
desirable ones (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). Due to its sensitive nature, Randall and Fernandes
(1991) argue that researchers in business ethics must be particularly sensitive to the potential
effects of social desirability bias, which, arguably, could also be extended to the context of
corporate social responsibility.
Though not necessarily because of these efforts, it is worth noting that hesitation was most
often evident in securing interviews, rather than during the interview itself. Indeed, many
interviewees expressed relief at being able to discuss challenges faced in engaging with CSR in
106
the workplace. Further, interviewees repeatedly stated that the interview experience had been a
far more enjoyable and less stressful experience than anticipated. In part, the anxiety that
accompanied a discussion of CSR engagement reflects the sensitivity of this topic, particularly
for those who are disengaged.
5.9. ConclusionThis research adopts a subjectivist ontology and interpretivist epistemology, which is grounded
in the theoretical framework of this thesis. As this work is concerned with how employees
themselves construct reality and craft meaning within situations, social reality is arguably
generated from within and not independent or externally created, supporting this research’s
subjective ontological approach. A subjectivist view therefore allows for the examination of
subjective experiences of employees.
A qualitative and exploratory research design employing semi-structured interviews was
chosen as ideal research design and methods. A variety of research approaches have been used
within the literature to explore the relationship between CSR and employees, including
conceptual, literature based reviews, third party surveys, and empirical studies. While there are
only a small number of studies that have employed qualitative methods, often small-scale and
involving case studies supported by interview data, research can benefit from the ability of
these methods to derive in-depth understanding and explanation of phenomena in their real
world-context. In particular, this approach contributes to the demand for individual and person
centric CSR research. Data were subsequently analysed thematically with a number of
precautions taken in order to insure that data analysis was conducted in the most thorough and
competent manner.
Finally, research ethics and access played an instrumental role in this research. Research ethics
were of particular importance due to the potential sensitive nature of both corporate social
responsibility and employee engagement. Indeed, it is this sensitivity that, at least in part, has
caused access to play a central and defining role in data collection. As a result, though not
generally featured outside of ethnography-based research, a reflective account is provided in
order to acknowledge the impact of research access and to discuss how challenges of access
affected the research.
107
Chapter 6: The Spectrum of CSR Engagement
6.1. IntroductionA necessary first step of this research, and from which subsequent contributions are formed, is
the understanding that employees exist across a spectrum of engagement from highly engaged
to highly disengaged. This chapter highlights variations in antecedents to engagement across
the spectrum, recognising that employees are driven differently. Furthermore, it contributes tfo
a growing body of work that suggests engagement and disengagement are not opposites. Unique
drivers for both employee CSR engagement and disengagement are critically analysed. By
exploring individual differences, this research not only contributes to gaps in theory, but also
identifies alternative means by which to engage disengaged employees. In particular, the type of
CSR intervention, which has received relatively little attention within the literature, will be
identified as having key implications for employee engagement. Attention then turns to the role
of individualism in employee CSR engagement and this research’s proposed model of
engagement. Lastly, due to its central role within organisations, CSR communication is critiqued.
6.2. The Spectrum of EngagementMost companies see CSR development, implementation and management as a top-down
process. Consequently, it has largely been senior management who decide what to support and
how (Bhattacharya, et al., 2008). However, a more strategic approach to CSR warrants greater
ownership of the initiatives by employees, who are increasingly required not just to have an
opinion about corporate responsibility but also to be active participants in its creation,
adoption, and dissemination. Consequently, while extant CSR literature has focused at the
organisational level (Lee, 2008), an increasing interest has been shown in the individual level of
CSR (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). However, because employees accept, interpret and operationalise
corporate responsibility differently and thus engage and disengage from organisational CSR in
different ways, organisations continue to struggle with the practical implementation of
sustainability interventions.
This research subsequently puts forward a model of employee engagement that recognises that
employees exist along a spectrum, identifying a range of personal, project, and organisational
level factors that influence employee CSR engagement. This model, while derived from the
findings rather than the literature, is presented at the beginning of the findings chapters in
order to contextualise and provide clarity for subsequent findings chapters, offering an
overarching framework by which to explore employee CSR engagement and disengagement.
Ensuing chapters will highlight the specific areas of the model to which they pertain.
108
Figure 6.1. Model for the Spectrum of Engagement
This model makes a threefold contribution. First, it contributes to understanding of person-
centric, individual level CSR by taking into consideration the subjective experiences of
individual employees engaging in corporate social responsibility, a critical gap in understanding
as identified in the conceptual framework presented in Section 4.7. Thus, in addition to
exploring the interrelationships amongst variables, it also contributes to understanding the
individual and relative experience of employees as they engage with CSR. By bridging individual
and organisational level research on corporate social responsibility, the model demonstrates
that CSR engagement is both mobile and context dependent and identifies that employee
engagement cannot be understood in isolation, with contextual organisational factors
influencing willingness to engage.
Second, the model clarifies the importance of individuality in CSR engagement, suggesting that
employees are driven to engage and disengage in unique ways, depending on where they sit
along the spectrum of engagement. This has key implications for stakeholder theory, suggesting
that in addition to unique opportunities and barriers to engagement amongst stakeholder
groups, differences also occur between stakeholders within a single group. Consequently,
though the diversity of employees tends to be supressed by homogenising and unifying
employee interests (Greenwood and Anderson, 2009), individuality plays a key role in effective
109
stakeholder engagement. The model of engagement therefore contributes to addressing a key
theoretical challenge with stakeholder theory, which calls for a finer grained understanding of
stakeholders (see Greenwood and Anderson, 2009; Harrison and Freeman, 1999; McVea and
Freeman, 2005).
Thus far, stakeholder theory has largely defined stakeholders according to a set of simple
generic roles with the firm (i.e. customers, suppliers, employees, and shareholders, etc.) with
few questioning the value of analysing stakeholders as generic groups based on their roles
(McVea and Freeman, 2005). Employees as a stakeholder group are defined based on a shared
interest in the organisation and have subsequently been treated as a single homogenous entity.
However, while employees may share a common interest in the organisation, this does not
necessitate additional shared interest nor shared values. As a result, organisations may find that
CSR values do not prove as meaningful for all employees, nor that employees will engage or
disengage in the same ways.
Discarding prior assumptions of internal homogeneity within stakeholder groups subsequently
contributes to the understanding of individual perspectives of CSR engagement and enables this
research to determine unique opportunities and barriers to employee CSR engagement. Typical
categorisations used in stakeholder theory often overlook the social glue, the bonds of group
cohesion, identity, and difference that typically form the basis for claim making in relation to the
firm” (Crane and Ruebottom, 2012, p. 77). Therefore, through the application of both
stakeholder and social identity theory, this thesis examines employee identification as being
derived not only from the organisation, or superordinate group, but also from subgroups within
the firm that may fall across or within divisions and departments.
Third, because it highlights differences amongst employee CSR engagement at a range of levels,
this model can help managers to design effective CSR policies and programmes for a range of
different employees. By determining where an employee sits along the spectrum, organisations
are better equipped to address individual opportunities and barriers to CSR engagement.
Practitioners who can identify potential antecedents to both engagement and disengagement
are therefore better equipped to present viable strategies to stakeholders, identify potential
challenges and communicate with clearer vision and direction (Wollard & Shuck, 2011).
The literature also suggests that antecedents to employee engagement must be in place before
an organisation can reap the benefits of an engaged workforce (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010;
Saks, 2006). Consequently, identifying and integrating these antecedents is fundamental to the
successful development of employee CSR engagement. The practical implications of this
research are subsequently identified as playing a critical role in contributing to the
110
minimisation of the gap between research and practice, which is particularly pertinent in
tourism and hospitality research (Cooper et al., 2015). Due to the direct implications of such
work to organisational practice, it is therefore unsurprising that a pragmatic approach has been
adopted by a number of similar studies within the field of corporate social responsibility,
employee engagement, and tourism and hospitality (e.g. Duarte 2010; Rupp et al., 2013c; Slack
and Corlett, 2015; Welch, 2011).
A further contribution of this thesis stems from the lack of studies that attempt to examine CSR
from a multi-layered perspective involving institutional, organisational and individual level
predictors (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Lovia Boateng, 2014). However, as suggested by
Bhattacharya et al, (2008), while stakeholder responses to CSR are generally favourable, they
are highly dependent upon the perceptions and characteristics of the individual, the company,
and to some extent, the broader industry and organisational environmental context. It is
important to consider multiple constituents when investigating the benefit of any given CSR
initiative. The model subsequently addresses this need by demonstrating employee mobility
along the spectrum based on antecedents to CSR engagement arising at the organisational,
project, and individual level.
Consequently, as is illustrated by Figure 6.1, employee CSR engagement spans a continuum from
highly engaged to highly disengaged, with employees’ current state of engagement able to be
mobilised along the spectrum of engagement using individual, project, and organisational level
drivers. The model reflects the multiplicity of employee CSR engagement and the different
reactions of employees towards organisational CSR. Further, it contributes to extant literature
by addressing not only engagement, but also disengagement. It is significant that in the current
discussion of antecedents to engagement a lack of attention has been given to the causal or
determining factors of disengagement (Pech & Slade, 2006). Subsequently, very little
information exists on the antecedents of disengagement. This is a critical oversight given that
there remains debate over whether the concepts of engagement and disengagement are in fact
opposites (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Indeed, as this research suggests, the absence of
identified drivers for engagement cannot necessarily be said to be the antecedents of
disengagement, a notion that is explored further in Section 8.6. This model therefore adds to
knowledge by identifying antecedents as they relate to both engagement and disengagement.
Recognising that employees exist along a spectrum inherently recognises that employees are
driven to engage in different ways. Indeed, as is illustrated in subsequent findings chapters,
what may act as a driver for engagement for some employees may drive disengagement for
others. This is consistent with findings by Hillman and Keim (2001), which demonstrate that
111
investing time, money, and human talent into any given CSR initiative might increase value to
one group while having a negative or neutral influence on others. It is therefore critical that
organisations consider multiple constituents when investigating the benefit of any given CSR
initiative. This research subsequently contributes to stakeholder engagement by providing a
multilevel analysis of employee CSR engagement that considers a range of opportunities and
barriers to CSR engagement and thus contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of
employee CSR engagement.
Having explored individual’s engagement and disengagement with CSR, this research recognises
that employees will engage sometimes and disengage at other times. It suggests that there are
no absolutes in terms of employee engagement with employees unlikely to be absolutely
engaged or absolutely disengaged. For example, a highly engaged employee may still engage in
less sustainable behaviour, such as driving to work, and a highly disengaged employee engaged,
at least to some extent, in pro-sustainable behaviour simply by working at a sustainably focused
organisation. As a result, employee CSR engagement is shown to be fluid and contextual and
thus, malleable.
6.3. Type of CSR InterventionCSR is plagued by a plethora of definitions. Though there are some calls for greater specificity
(McWilliams, et al., 2006), in order to move beyond the usual rhetoric and to focus on how
organisations interpret and engage with CSR, rather than on what CSR should include, a
relatively broad definition was applied in this research. CSR referred to “context-specific
organisational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the
triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” (Aguinis, 2011, p. 855)
(see also Section 2.2). These CSR actions and policies covered work as diverse as responsible
management, community engagement, environmental responsibility, and customer and supply-
chain management. However, while the use of CSR as an umbrella term encompassing a range of
responsible behaviour enabled the researcher to capture employees’ unique interpretations and
experiences with the concept, it is important here to draw a distinction between key elements of
corporate responsibility. CSR interventions can take many different forms; however, this
research identifies two main forms of corporate responsibility, which were frequently the focus
of employee responses: corporate fundraising and corporate volunteering. Setting parameters
for CSR and understanding it as these two key components helps to contextualise the discussion
of research findings.
Furthermore, within the literature, little attention is given to the differences in employee
engagement based on the type of CSR intervention (a notable exception includes Hameed, et al.,
112
2016). Both corporate fundraising (CF) and corporate volunteering (CV) have been addressed
individually, with researchers examining employee motivation and volunteering (e.g., Garavan
& McGuire, 2010; Muthuri, et al., 2009; Pajo & Lee, 2011; Peterson, 2004) and mechanisms
driving charitable giving (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011a; Bennett, 2003). However, research
findings suggest that employee engagement is affected by intervention type. Consequently,
examining differences in engagement for corporate volunteering and corporate fundraising
provides critical insight into antecedents to employee CSR engagement and disengagement.
6.3.1. Corporate VolunteeringIn general, employees viewed corporate volunteering very positively. Interviews revealed that
employees were driven to engage in CV for two main reasons: corporate volunteering schemes
that included time out of the office were considered indicative of organisational support for CSR
and employees perceived these interventions as providing benefits. Key benefits identified by
employees included opportunities for teambuilding and socialisation, time out of the office, and
altruistic outcomes. Employees identified several positive attributions of corporate
volunteering:
[Volunteer days] are really popular because you’re getting that day; the business gives you
that day, like you don’t have to take it as holiday or anything like that. And you get the
opportunity to help in that community. So for most people this will be their local community,
and they feel like they’re doing good (Bonnie, CSR champion)
It is possible that it is due to benefits beyond pure altruism that CV appears to hold such high
appeal to disengaged employees. While many employees were driven to engage because it was
“the right thing to do”, employees identified benefits to corporate volunteering that extended
beyond pure altruism. Employees repeatedly highlighted that you did not lose wages if you
participated in volunteer days. Employees perceived the benefits here as being twofold. Firstly,
and perhaps most obviously, employees benefited in that they did not lose wages by choosing to
participate. However, more interestingly, employees also identified an organisation’s
willingness to pay employee wages while working on CSR outside of the office as being
indicative of true organisation support for corporate responsibility. Employee trust that
organisational motives for CSR are genuine links to employee CSR attributions, a key antecedent
to engagement that is discussed further in Section 8.2.
Employee volunteering is shown to be conducive of generating social capital through
networking and generating trust (Muthuri, et al., 2006), key drivers that are seen to be
particularly influential for disengaged employees (see Section 8.3). In addition, the autonomy
and choice associated with corporate volunteering likely contributes to the appeal for
113
disengaged employees. With corporate volunteering, employees are generally given greater
autonomy to select interventions and thus may select projects that complement the interests,
values, and expectations brought forward by salient social identities.
Furthermore, many employees expressed a preference for participating in locally based
initiatives, which volunteer projects often are: “for the feel good factor, I’d probably want to do
something local. That bulb planting thing, whilst it was a bit silly, it actually felt really good”
(Cody, disengaged employee). Consequently, though stakeholders are predominantly defined by
their generic economic functions (e.g. as employees), stakeholder claims are seen to stem from a
broad range of demographic, cultural, political, and social affiliations, including community
membership. Therefore, with different aspects of social identity bringing forward different
interests, values, and expectations (Crane and Ruebottom, 2012), the salience of employee
membership in the community will affect employee expectations in regards to corporate social
responsibility interventions.
Employee reactions to CSR also suggest that an organisation’s actions towards external
stakeholder groups may subsequently impact internal stakeholders. Specifically, if an
organisation is seen to engage with external stakeholders (e.g. the local community) through
corporate social responsibility initiatives, some employees interpreted this as being reflective of
broader organisational behaviour. Using signalling theory, this would suggest that an
organisation’s behaviour towards external stakeholders signals to internal stakeholders that
because they engage in responsible behaviour with other stakeholder groups, an organisaiton
will be equally as likely to engage in responsible behaviour with employees. This sentiment is
illustrated by Adam, an engaged employee, who explains, “if your company is socially
responsible, I think that sends out so many messages not just externally, but also about […] the
organisation’s values and how it kind of values people, including you”.
With benefits to both the organisation and its employees, there is subsequently a case for
greater regularity and embedding of volunteer days into the working month or year. In addition
to organisational commitment, corporate volunteering has the potential to help employees
bring more of their whole selves to work. With work and home in ever-increasing competition,
employees struggle to merge their professional and personal selves. Furthermore, changing
employee-employer relationships have resulted in increased frustration and disenchantment
with work, with employees seeking opportunities for greater self-expression and fulfilment
(Bunting, 2004). Consequently, by providing employees with the autonomy and choice to select
corporate volunteering initiatives, including those that they may already engage with outside of
work, employees are able to bring more of themselves into the workplace. Sense of self is
114
critical to finding meaning in work (Chalofsky, 2010), which is linked to engagement. As a result,
organisations can help individuals to achieve a sense of meaning and improved engagement by
supporting and encouraging employees to be actively involved in volunteering efforts.
Furthermore, with employee desiring not only to engage in altruism but also to have
organisations support them in these endeavours, there is a growing place for altruism in
professional development. The link between corporate supported volunteering and skill
development is long established, with research showing that volunteering can contribute to the
development of valuable business skills, such as employee leadership (Booth, et al., 2009). By
embedding opportunities for altruistic behaviour into the working month or year, not only are
employees able to engage with corporate responsibility but benefits of professional
development can also be achieved. Consequently, encouraging altruistic behaviours within the
work life of employees can help to move organisations and communities forward through a
focus on responsible behaviour.
Nevertheless, though employees from across the spectrum of engagement continually expressed
an interest in corporate volunteering, one organisation remained doubtful that volunteer
programs would have sufficient buy-in from employees. Management feared that though
employees expressed an interest in volunteer days, actual participation would be minimal.
Expressing concern over an attitude-behaviour gap, management within this organisation chose
instead to pursue a range of activities that contributed to corporate fundraising, rather than
volunteer initiatives. Nevertheless, research findings identified employees from across the
spectrum of engagement continually expressed an interest in CV:
The biggest thing is that, you know, there are a lot of other companies that do volunteer days
and there’s so much activity you want to do but you don’t have the time. So, I think if you
have a volunteer day where you say, okay, it’s not a day’s holiday but it’s a day that I go for
the one day of the year to do fundraising [for our corporate charity] or do some other
charity volunteer work, to be able to make a difference (Arthur, engaged employee)
6.3.2. Corporate FundraisingFar less positive associations were given to corporate fundraising. Employees describe
fundraising as being invasive and pushy and felt negatively about organisational and peer
pressure to participate. Illustrating this, when asked what employees might find discouraging
about participating in CSR, Aiden, a disengaged employee, responded, “other than the cash
involved?”. Others suggested that employees who would have otherwise engaged in CSR,
disengaged due to the financial demands of some interventions. Due to the financial and social
pressures associated with corporate fundraising, coupled with a perceived lack of benefits, it is
115
unsurprising that employees expressed a preference for corporate volunteering: “I would
probably be interested in, like, donating time to something. That would be something I think
would actually give it a different edge. Because currently it seems to be money, money, money”
(Charles, disengaged employee). Furthermore, in addition to the financial burden of corporate
fundraising, beyond ‘feeling good’ or ‘doing good’, employees identified no real benefits to
corporate fundraising. As a result, for some employees philanthropy was actually seen to foster
disengagement. Identifying the unintended negative consequences of CSR helps to address the
current lack of understanding of employee CSR disengagement as identified in the conceptual
framework (see Section 4.7) and thus provides an original contribution to knowledge.
Furthermore, this has key implications for human resource development (HRD). Collier and
Esteban (2007) argue that HRD has a major role to play in helping organisations to achieve
corporate responsibility objectives. In particular, HRD can help to foster individual development
(Fenwick & Bierema, 2008), education, training and development (Chinander, 2001), therefore
allowing employees to recognise greater benefits from CSR participation.
HRD can also help embed corporate responsibility practises into the organisation (Garavan, et
al., 2010). Both fundraising and volunteering are examples of external and peripheral CSR
(Aguinis & Glavas, 2013); however, by adopting internally embedded CSR and incorporating
CSR into the daily working life of the organisation, organisations have a third avenue by which
to encourage employee engagement. Embedding corporate responsibility into mainstream
business practises of the organisation can remove a number of barriers to engagement,
including challenges of time and practicality (see Section 8.4.4) as well as reducing employee
cynicism over CSR being a peripheral rather than core organisational concern (see Section 6.4.).
For example, embedded CSR initiatives, such as providing locally and sustainably sourced food
in the office cafeteria, present an opportunity to engage without demanding significant changes
in employees’ daily working life. This has key implications for the spectrum of engagement as
different employees engage in different types of CSR in different contexts. Some employees will
disengage from some projects at some times and thus, embedding corporate responsibility in
the daily working life of the organisation provides a greater number of opportunities to engage.
By providing employees with the autonomy to engage in a wide range of projects, employees
can be mobilised along the spectrum of engagement. Coupled with choice editing, embedding
CSR provides an opportunity to reach otherwise hard to reach employees and engage them in
corporate responsibility.
6.4. Communication, Awareness, and UnderstandingThrough the collection and analysis of data, communication is shown to play a diverse and
critical role in employee CSR engagement. Coupled with its central role in organisational
116
planning and practise, communication therefore comes near the start of the findings discussion.
Kakabadse et al. (2007) contend that determined and focused dialogue is mandatory for
building CSR awareness and knowledge or, as Bonnie, a CSR champion, explains, “if people don’t
know it’s happening, how can you engage with it?”. Critically, unless employees understand
organisational CSR interventions, the goals they are aiming for, and how to achieve them,
corporate responsibility will struggle to succeed. According to one engaged employee, Alma, this
is a driving factor behind the promotion of organisational CSR interventions and, as a result,
“most people here know what [our project] is. I think if anyone didn’t, that would be a reason
not to get involved, so it’s really, really well publicised”. This section subsequently explores the
managerial strategies to communicate of CSR initiatives, including both participative
management and storytelling. This is followed by individual level responses to these strategies
as well as an analysis of barriers preventing employee communication, awareness and
understanding of CSR, each of which shall be discussed in turn. The model for the spectrum of
engagement, with the impact of communication on CSR engagement and disengagement
highlighted, is provided in Figure 6.2.
6.4.1. Communication for Corporate InitiativesOrganisations sought to build awareness of CSR interventions so that employees might fully
engage in them with, using typical communication channels including the intranet, voicemail,
email, meetings, and newsletters. As suggested by management from one organisation, “we
regularly use these channels for employees to say, ‘look, we reduced our water usage last year,
we had so many people participate in fundraising’”, explains Annie but emphasises that while
that is what the organisation is doing currently, “we could be doing much more”. This can result
in situations such as that described by Callum, an engaged employee,: “we’re actually an
incredibly green company, we just communicate it very poorly, so no one knows anything”.
Bhattacharya et al., (2008, p. 39) suggest that organisations may struggle to connect with
employees by “tucking away news about CSR on remote pages of the intranet”. Indeed, though
not the primary channel for CSR communication, many employees suggested that face-to-face
communication is the most effective. Barry, a disengaged employee, explains:
You want to hear it from your colleague’s mouths, rather than it just being fed down from the
top or in some kind of email or slide […] I think that actually to hear it from people who have
gone and done it, I think that is a good way of doing it. But again, it is in a setting where you
can go along and attend if you are interested, and if you are not, you don’t have to. It’s not
another thing that is in your inbox, sitting there waiting to be read.
In addition to word of mouth, employees report that communicating how corporate
responsibility efforts link to key charities helps to facilitate engagement: “a lot of the things we
117
tried to do sort of we tried to link back to [our charity] and what it means. And it was quite nice
for people who were sort of, ‘yeah, I’ll do that because it’s for [our charity]” (Alma, engaged
employee). However, some projects have greater awareness and publicity than others. In
particular, with organisation’s flagship projects, April, an engaged employee, suggests that they
can be the “[…] key focus and the rest are kind of on the side-lines” causing employees to feel
less confident and “a little bit lost” when certain projects aren’t “communicated as well as the
others”.
This reflects the importance of individuals creating and driving ideas. Thus far, research and
practise of leadership has focused on the person heading the team or organisation and their
relationship with followers (Pearce & Conger, 2003). However, as indicated by Carmeli et al.
(2006), this approach emphasises a top-down process in which subordinates are controlled.
Nevertheless, if employees are to become co-creators of CSR value, this opens new lines of
thinking about CSR leadership and communication with employees actively involved in the
development and dissemination of corporate social responsibility interventions.
Participative Management Employee understanding of CSR interventions relates to their involvement in the development
of CSR initiatives. Beyond CSR champion networks or green teams, organisations typically
involved employees by having them submit and vote on sustainability ideas or by providing
employees with the autonomy to design initiatives within their teams. For example, as Amber,
who is engaged in CSR, explains, “rather than organise events for everyone, we do do big ones,
but we actually give them resources to be able to do it themselves”. This is a common
managerial practise used to drive engagement: “I think if it’s your idea, you’re more engaged to
be part of it. Like if we’re seen to be listening to you, which is what we want, then I think that
really helps” (Bonnie, CSR champion). However, there is arguably greater scope for participative
management, particularly in relation to employee contributions to initiatives that involve
sustainability engagement beyond individual teams. When asked what would increase
employee CSR engagement, Annabelle, who is engaged, argued for “empowering employees to
come up with their own way of participating”.
Participative management, also known as participative decision-making or employee
involvement, is linked to employee learning (Gupta & Thomas, 2001) and thus can play an
important role in employee CSR communication and engagement. Maclagan (2002, p. 24)
highlights the importance of participation in CSR, arguing, “involving individual members of
organisations is a reminder that the very idea of corporate responsibility strongly suggests a
need to consider the values, motives, and choices of those real people who are involved in
118
formulating policy and taking decisions”. An analysis of multiple employee perspectives
indicated a need for greater employee involvement in the design and implementation of
corporate responsibility interventions, highlighting the importance of the critical juncture
where stakeholders and organisational CSR decision-making converge.
At its core, corporate social responsibility is about people and thus stakeholder engagement and
communication are critical elements of its success. It is therefore possible for participative
management to positively impact employee CSR engagement in four key ways. Firstly,
participation is shown to reduce role ambiguity (Daniels & Bailey, 1999), which employees
identified as a barrier to engagement. Secondly, empowering employees through participative
management necessitates increased employee autonomy and discretion, which is shown to
positively influence employee engagement (see also Section 6.5.3 and Section 7.4.3). Thirdly,
participative management is able to foster higher levels of employee trust (Dirks & Ferrin,
2002), which as noted in this section, is a key driver of employee engagement. Fourthly, and
perhaps most importantly, participative decision-making is positively linked to superior-
subordinate communication (Harrison, 1985). This has key implications since managers are
identified as a significant driver of employee engagement and disengagement. While the role of
managers in CSR engagement is discussed in Section 8.3.2, it is worth noting here the
importance of training managers in internal marketing and CSR communication (Grayson &
Sanchez-Hernandez, 2010). Furthermore, in order to achieve this level of participation,
managers must possess the necessary skills to identify, engage with, and develop capacity to
give stakeholders true power in the relationship between business and society. The model for
the spectrum of engagement presented in this thesis subsequently provides a framework by
which to identify unique antecedents for different employee groups that can be used to engage
individuals in corporate social responsibility.
StorytellingIn addition to participative management, communication challenges might also be addressed
through the use of storytelling. In contrast with more traditional communication mediums,
Sinclair (2005) suggests that using meaningful stories can be a valuable communication strategy
as it is a means of separating constructive communication from the ‘mundane message
overflow’ associated with more traditional corporate communication. Storytelling plays a
critical role in the communication of one organisation in particular, though it has been adopted
in order to build an emotional connection between employees and corporate responsibility
rather than to explicitly address over communication. Annie suggests that in order to drive
engagement, it’s important to “really bring [CSR] to life and telling the story through individuals
who have – who either participated in the programmemes or have been touched by the
119
programmemes and it’s helped them in some way. I think that kind of story telling is key”.
Indeed, so central is the role of storytelling in CSR communication that “one of [the
organisation’s] unofficial KPOs is to make people cry and get that emotional engagement. It
really does bring it to life!” (Annie).
The ability of storytelling to drive emotional engagement is consistent with emergent literature,
which suggests that employees interpret narration in line with their own experiences, allowing
personalised cognition about problems, solutions and explanations (Denning, 2005). Due to
storytelling’s ability to address organisational diversity communication challenges (Barker &
Gower, 2010), this research posits that in addition to contributing to effective communication
and emotional engagement, storytelling provides a valuable tool by which to address
employees’ perceived interest in and relevance of organisational CSR interventions, a key
barrier identified in Section 7.4.2. Owing to the flexible framework of storytelling, employees
come to see themselves reflected through corporate narratives and thus come to find CSR
interventions of increasing interest and relevance.
6.4.2. Communication for Individual EngagementHowever, organisations may struggle with the multiplicity of employees’ existing level of
awareness and understanding of CSR. Due to different CSR communication needs,
interpretations, and understanding amongst individual employees, respondents identified key
barriers arising through role ambiguity and line of sight. As Bob, a CSR champion, reports,
employees are more aware of those projects that are directly integrated into the daily working
life of the organisation, such as recycling. Conversely, projects that are less central may have
limited awareness and understanding. Thus, it becomes clear that not all projects are
communicated equally and are subject to varying levels of engagement from employees. This
underscores the spectrum of engagement by which employee expectations, views, and attitudes
towards CSR are not homogenous. Furthermore, it suggests that embedding sustainability into
the daily working life of employees can be used to engage otherwise hard to reach employees.
The use of different CSR interventions, including the integration of CSR into the workplace, and
their effectiveness in driving engagement is discussed in detail in Section 6.3.
Failure to communicate how employees can contribute to CSR interventions is identified as a
key barrier to engagement, for both engaged and disengaged employees (see Figure 6.2.). Issues
with role ambiguity are particularly prevalent in organisations that offer greater flexibility in
the ways employees can engage in corporate responsibility. For instance, one organisation’s CSR
efforts range from straightforward projects, such as recycling, to those that are less clearly
linked to responsible behaviour, such as conga lines, salsa dance lessons, and company football
matches. This may result in situations such as that described by engaged employee, Alyssa,
120
where the organisation matched a dollar for every employee that participated in the company
football match: “we don’t ask them to give money, we ask them to take part. So I think that’s
confusing because it’s just like how am I actually doing these things that’ll mean they should
make a difference?”. Consequently, as Alyssa, who is engaged, explains, “sometimes it’s not
always clear to people and they just sort of give up and they’re like, ‘how am I helping? I’m not
raising any money’”.
Indeed, within the literature role ambiguity is identified as contributing to unethical attitudes,
expectations, and behaviours in employees (Dubinsky & Ingram, 1984; Fisher & Gitelson, 1983;
Hollingworth & Valentine, 2011; Vitell & Festervant, 1987). The implication of this, as illustrated
by an engaged employee, Aurora, is that “if you are not sure about something, you just kind of
leave it”. When employees don’t understand how a project works, some employees suggest that
it is easier to disengage than engage. For example, Becky, a CSR champion, describes a lack of
engagement with office recycling due to confusion over how the recycling programme works:
“You didn’t have a clue where your can was supposed to go so you just walked to the kitchen
and put it in the bin. And it was just kind of easy because you were walking past that”.
This relates to key issues of line of sight, which refers to an employee’s understanding of
organisational goals and the actions necessary to accomplish these goals (Boswell, et al., 2006).
Similarly to person-organisation fit (see Section 8.5), line of sight addresses issues of employee
congruence with the organisation and is argued to be a key driver of employee engagement
(Gay & D'Aprix, 2006). However, line of sight is conceptually distinct from person-organisation
fit as it focuses on strategic objectives, rather than value systems (Boswell, 2006). Importantly,
line of sight specifically focuses on employee alignment with organisational strategy rather than
culture (ibid). Consequently,
for employees who do not
share organisational culture
or organisational value
systems, line of sight provides
an alternative means by which
to foster engagement.
Furthermore, line of sight to
an organisation’s strategic
objectives may promote a
feeling of ‘fit’ within the
organisation (Boswell, 2006).
121
Current State of Engagement
Figure 6.2 Communication as a Driver for Disengagement
Current State of Engagement
Future State of Engagement
Lack of awarenessRole ambiguityNo line of sightLack of transparencyOver communicationLack of trust
Lack of awarenessRole ambiguityNo line of sightLack of transparency
Highly Engaged
Highly Disengaged
Highly EngagedHighly Disengaged
This is of particular importance for disengaged employees who may struggle with feelings of
isolation or exclusion (see Section 6.5.). Furthermore, for hard to reach employees, developing a
clear line of sight with corporate social responsibility provides a way to engage these
individuals beyond organisational culture or values systems, which, as shown in Section 6.5 and
8.4, they may not share.
6.4.3. Greater Clarity in CSR CommunicationIt is increasingly evident that there is a need for greater clarity in CSR communication. In
particular, transparency was identified as a key area for improving CSR communication. When
asked what employees might find problematic about CSR engagement, Aiden, who is currently
disengaged from CSR, emphasised the importance of understanding projects: “Understanding it.
Understanding why we do it. Understanding the benefits of doing it”. Similar responses came
from employees throughout all three organisations. For example, as Angelica, a disengaged
employee, explained:
[Employees] don’t always understand how these things are managed, and there’s sometimes
a bit of a disconnect between the programme that we’re participating in and really
understanding how that’s making a difference, to the money used, or how that money is
deployed.
In part, wanting to understand projects relates to employees’ ability to participate but also to
key issues of transparency. Employees, especially those who are disengaged, expressed concern
over issues of transparency (see Figure 6.2) and a lack of clarity with the impact of projects,
predominantly when fundraising was involved: “It is a bit of a grey area sometimes in terms of
how much were we contributing and where it is going. And actually tracking the pledges and
everything […] I do feel it wasn’t clear in terms of how it was structured” (Aurora, engaged
employee). Transparency relates to key drivers of employee CSR engagement, namely honesty
and trust. When employees trust their employer, they are more likely to engage in extra role
behaviours (Mey, et al., 2014). As Ivey, who is an industry professional, suggests, “if you
communicate [CSR] well, you manage to build up this trust”. Research by Dawkins and Lewis
(2003) demonstrates stakeholder demand for openness regarding organisational
considerations and results, which is consistent with these research findings. For example, when
asked how to achieve greater engagement in corporate responsibility Aiden, a disengaged
employee, argued for transparency: “I think if you are transparent about the project and you are
transparent where the money is going, then people who are into that certain cause or project
will actually become part of it, if they know about it”. Furthermore, honesty and trust reduces
employee cynicism, an antecedent to disengagement that is characterised by distrust between
employees, organisations, and leadership (Andersson, 1996; Dean, et al., 1998).
122
In addition, disengaged employees acknowledged issues of over communication. Several
employees identified over communication of CSR as a driver of disengagement indicating that it
can be challenging for organisations to achieve optimal levels of communication. As Briana, a
CSR champion, suggests, “with things like printing, a lot of people just… it’s like shut up, stop
talking about it!”. Barry, who is disengaged, explains, “I just think everyone gets sick of seeing it
all and it clogging up our inboxes […] Every time I get an email from [the CSR team], I generally
reply back ‘bloody charity again!’. […] I say it in jest, but it is kind of… I do get fed up at times
with it”. The persistence of CSR promotion within the organisation has some employees feeling
as though “it’s in your face every day” (Christopher, disengaged employee). Due to the negative
implications of over communication, there is a case for embedding corporate responsibility
messages into more mainstream communications. Dawkins (2005) argues that since many
audiences are not proactively looking for information on CSR, stand-alone CSR communication
appeals only to some engaged audiences. An engaged employee, Callum suggests, “we try and
work on it as much as possible, try to find that balance of getting people interested but not
annoying them”. However, what is appropriate and effective communication for one employee
may not be for another. The diverse information requirements of different stakeholder groups
therefore present organisations with unique communication challenges. While internal
communication underpins organisational effectiveness, internal communication is,
paradoxically, also able to be counter-productive: “the potential benefits of internal
communication rely on appropriate messages reaching employees in formats useful and
acceptable to them” (Welch, 2012, p. 246). Effective CSR communication therefore requires
tailored messages for different stakeholder groups (Dawkins, 2005).
In addition, over-communication might be addressed through targeted CSR messages that
provide information tailored to specific audiences so that information is both relevant and
meaningful (Barrett, 2002). Reflecting the complexities of encouraging greater engagement,
organisations may need to convert the overall message of the company into actionable
messages that employees can understand and act upon. However, while managers would play a
critical role in the success of tailored CSR communication due to proximity and understanding
of employees within their departments, these individuals may not be either willing or equipped
to effectively communicate the CSR message (see also Section 8.3.2). Furthermore, while using
tailored CSR communication can provide organisations with increasing control over how the
sustainability message is presented, in order to be effective it also requires a greater
understanding of who is engaging and what drives them to engage. However, if successful,
tailored communication can contribute to employee line of sight, which contributes not only to
employee alignment with organisational strategy, but also to overall engagement and feeling of
123
fit (see Section 6.4.2). In addition, providing an individual connection to communications can
contribute to the emotional engagement and subsequent interest of employees in CSR
interventions, the benefits of which are discussed further in Section 7.4.2.
Improvements in the monitoring and measurement of CSR communication are also critical to its
success. Though it plays a key role in employee CSR engagement, internal CSR communication is
rarely measured or monitored; when asked, management from one organisation commented,
“it’s interesting. We haven’t – up until now we haven’t really measured the success of the
stories that we put on the company intranet site. That’s something that we’re looking to do”
(Annie). The need to monitor CSR communication was voiced across the organisations as,
according to one engaged employee, Courtney:
Communication is always an issue for a lot of people in the business. […] I just think
sometimes because we get so busy in our actual jobs that it can sometimes sit on the
backburner a little bit and doesn’t always get communicated or it doesn’t get communicated
in the right way, it’s just roughly skirted over and people are expected to understand it, so I
think that can sometimes affect people’s decisions.
Given that identity, reputation, and stakeholder engagement form the cornerstones of corporate
communication (Cornelissen, 2004), it is perhaps unsurprising that external CSR
communication often takes precedence over internal communication. Nevertheless, as one of
the main interfaces with other stakeholder groups and considered a particularly credible source
of information, employees are potentially powerful advocates of CSR (Dawkins, 2005). In
addition, as is demonstrated by these research findings, internal communication of CSR
contribute to employee understanding, support and willingness to engage in corporate
responsibility. Monitoring CSR communication subsequently provides an opportunity for
organisations to address issues of understanding and ambiguity and to facilitate greater
employee CSR engagement.
6.5. ConclusionThe aim of this chapter was to analyse the spectrum of employee engagement, from which
subsequent contributions are formed. In doing so, the chapter identifies variations in
engagement across the spectrum, recognising that employees are driven in a range of different
ways. This has implications for CSR leadership, as demonstrated in Chapter 7, as well as for the
unique barriers and opportunities to CSR engagement, which are examined in Chapter 8.
Furthermore, it establishes that the concepts of engagement and disengagement are not
opposites and thus, that the absence of drivers for engagement does not necessarily result in
disengagement. Consequently, engagement is seen to be far more fluid and contextually
124
dependent with employees engaging and disengaging at different times and for different
reasons.
This chapter also sets parameters for the types of CSR examined within this thesis. Though
corporate social responsibility policy and practice can materialize in many ways, this research
identifies two main forms of CSR: corporate volunteering and corporate fundraising. These two
areas of activity were often the focus of employee responses, suggesting that though their
organisations engage in a wide variety of CSR interventions, employee understanding of CSR
remains limited. Nonetheless, beyond employee understanding, type of CSR is shown to
influence employee engagement with both corporate volunteering and corporate fundraising
providing unique opportunities and challenges for engagement.
Communication is subsequently identified as playing a diverse and critical role in employee CSR
engagement. In particular, due to diversity amongst employees, this stakeholder group requires
tailored communication that addresses the needs of employees across the spectrum of
engagement. Communication provides a means of engaging a range of employees with
transparency, line of sight, and storytelling providing additional opportunities to engage
disengaged employees. Arguments are also made to embed both CSR communication and CSR
interventions into mainstream business practices. With standalone CSR only appealing to some
audiences, embedded CSR practices can help to eliminate key barriers to engagement. The
implications of embedded CSR practices continue to emerge throughout this thesis and will also
be discussed in relation to organisational leadership as well as intervention fit.
Chapter 7: The Role of Leadership and Culture in CSR Engagement
7.1. IntroductionThis chapter reports the key findings of this research as they relate to the broader corporate
contextual factors that influence employee engagement in corporate social responsibility. While
this study is focused on the individual level of analysis, it has become clear that it is not possible
to fully understand individual drivers for CSR engagement without also investigating employee
perceptions of the wider organisational context within which they operate. Consequently, it is
important to examine those overlying factors within organisations that influence employee
engagement, namely the role of leadership and organisational culture. In doing so, these
findings contribute to gaps in understanding identified in the conceptual framework (see
Section 4.7) because though the analysis of corporate social responsibility and employee
engagement is often examined at the organisational level, it has yet to be fully explored in
relation to employee CSR disengagement. Further, this research contributes to knowledge by
125
providing employee level perspectives on overarching organisational features. The impacts of
organisational culture and leadership on employee CSR engagement examined in Chapter 7 are
illustrated in Figure 7.1., emphasising the unique needs of both engaged and disengaged
employees.
7.2. Attributes of Effective CSR LeadershipOrganisational level CSR research has begun to explore the effect of leaders’ personal traits on
organisational engagement in CSR (Waldman et al., 2006b). However, significantly less is
understood from the individual level perspective concerning the effect of leaders’ attributes on
employee engagement in corporate responsibility. Leaders’ personal attributes have been shown
to shape a number of organisational outcomes, including employee resistance to organisational
change (Oreg & Berson, 2011), organisational culture (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bertels & Peloza,
2008), firm performance (Waldman et al., 2001), and employee wellbeing (Seltzer et al., 1989).
Given the relevance of personality type to success in leadership and the impact these attributes
have on organisational outcomes, it is highly likely that the skills and attributes of leaders play
an equally prominent role at the individual level, influencing employee engagement in CSR
interventions.
Indeed, from the interview data key attributes of effective CSR leaders have been identified.
These are the leadership characteristics acknowledged by employees as critically influencing
their own decisions to engage or disengage from organisational CSR. The identified attributes of
effective CSR leaders include perceptions of genuineness and passion. By distinguishing those
attributes identified by employees as influential in the CSR engagement process, this research
contributes to diminishing knowledge gaps in the literature concerning the role and impact of
leaders on employee engagement in CSR. It identifies key internal conditional factors affecting
the management of CSR stakeholder engagement, including the role of leadership and values.
7.2.1. GenuinenessPerceptions of genuineness appear to rank amongst the most critical aspects of successful CSR
leadership. Interviewees name leaders who appear to have a genuine belief in the CSR policies
and practises that they espouse as positively impacting employee engagement. This relates to
the symbolic and substantive dimensions of CSR outlined in Section 2.5. Substantive CSR, which
refers to the genuine commitment of an organisation, is shown to positively influence employee
CSR engagement (see Section 8.2), where as symbolic CSR, or green washing, is shown to be an
126
antecedent to employee
disengagement. While
Section 8.2 illustrates the
relationship between
organisational motives and
employee CSR engagement,
the relationship between
leader genuineness and
employee CSR engagement
suggests that in addition to
leadership action,
leadership attributes also
play a key role in employee
perceptions and
subsequent engagement in
corporate social
responsibility.
When inquired, Angelica, who is largely disengaged from organisational CSR, suggested “any
sense of cynicism or opportunism [from leaders], if it’s… if they don’t appear to be 100% behind
the foundation or the charity, then it won’t work”. Other interviewees also mention the
importance of a sense of genuineness and agree to its importance. Genuineness in leadership is
characterised by leader self-knowledge, which reflects clarity about their values and convictions
(Avolio et al., 2004). Perceptions of genuineness are therefore linked to the belief that a leader’s
actions are consistent with their values. As Agnes, a disengaged employee, illustrates:
[…] if you see a leader, a person on one of the leadership teams, taking part in this activity
and you see that they’re genuine about it and is not doing it just because he’s forced to do it,
you actually understand how that person thinks, that it’s real and it’s important. […] If you
see a person that when he tells you about it, really believes in what he says, then you will
believe it as well, because if you realise that that person is just reading a script because the
PA handed it over, then you’ll say, ‘Okay, why should I do it?’
Consequently, though discussed in detail in Section 8.2, the importance of employee CSR
perceptions is worth noting here due to the prevalence of employee suspicion regarding
organisational motives for CSR (Berglind & Nakata, 2005; Panagopoulos, 2016), which can
influence employee willingness to engage in CSR. One potential reason for this is that internally
127
Figure 7.1. Organisational Level Factors Influencing Employee
Engagement and Disengagement
Current State of Engagement
Current State of Engagement
Future State of Engagement
Genuineness of leadershipLeaders’ passionC-Suite and board level supportMiddle management
Perceived lack of management supportCSR Champions
Genuineness of leadershipLeaders’ passionC-Suite and board level supportMiddle managementCSR ChampionsOrganisational culture
Perceived lack of management support
Highly Engaged
Highly Disengaged
Highly EngagedHighly Disengaged
motivated ethics programmes tend to be built upon the core values of organisational leaders
(McDonald and Nijhof, 1999), therefore helping to ensure consistency of values and behaviour,
which drives CSR adoption at both the organisational and individual level. However,
programmes that are not built upon core values and are instead driven by self-interest, can
undermine organisational support because leaders whose responsible behaviour is driven by
self-interest tend to be less consistent and more contradictory in their behaviour since there is
no guarantee that ethical considerations will supersede those of self-interest (Fisher, 2003).
Therefore, employees suggest that in order to encourage participation, a leader should
demonstrate genuineness, and should “believe in what they’re doing and be able to show that”
(Charlotte, disengaged employee). Due to the media’s tendency to report mainly irresponsible
acts of an organisation (Tench et al., 2007), challenges of green washing (Farooq et al., 2013),
and perceptions of disingenuous communication (Crane & Livesey, 2003), stakeholder
misconceptions of CSR are not uncommon and stakeholders can subsequently take a sceptical
approach towards CSR. Unsurprisingly, cynicism is therefore considered a key barrier to
employee engagement, influencing employee perceptions of organisational motives and
willingness to participate. Consequently, as Austin, who is engaged in organisational CSR,
explains, in order to drive employee engagement in CSR, leaders must demonstrate “authentic,
personal passion and not just [be] leaders who do it in the moment and for the photo
opportunity”. This thesis therefore expands upon current arguments by suggesting that in
addition to disingenuous organisational motives causing employee cynicism (Miller and
Skidmore, 2004), that perception of disingenuous leadership attributes can also result in
employee cynicism.
The role of authentic leadership in CSR engagement thus becomes critical because, while
employees generally react favourably to a firm’s corporate responsibility initiatives, CSR can be
a suspicion loaded concept with researchers noting inconsistencies in some employee
responses (McShane & Cunningham, 2012; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). Authentic leadership has
been demonstrated to have a positive impact on negative attitudes, ideas, and behaviours,
including organisational cynicism (Bommer, et al., 2005; Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2005; Davis
& Gardner, 2004; Wu, Neuberg, & Yi, 2007). Genuineness is intrinsically linked to authentic
leadership and, along with trustworthiness, reliability, compassion, and believability, is one of
its key attributes (Shirey, 2006). Critically, authentic leadership requires leader behaviour that
is consistent with a leader’s personal values. Since authentic leaders act on the basis of their
strong values and convictions (Shamir & Eilam, 2005), they lead in a manner that followers
recognise to be authentic. As a result, the values and behaviours of CSR leaders indicate to
128
employees the significance placed on organisational CSR, reflecting the role and importance of
responsible behaviour within an organisation.
7.2.2. PassionEmployees also identified a need for visible passion from leadership with the passion of leaders
connected to their ability to excite and inspire employees to engage in CSR. As one interviewee
suggested, “I think when I see my manager, when I see how passionate she is about what she
does, I think that’s quite inspiring, quite motivating” (Alyssa, engaged employee). Another
describes the enthusiasm of leaders, specifically those in the CSR team, as a not only a source of
guidance but also a source of passion that they themselves can tap into (Austin, engaged
employee). Luthans and Avolio (2003) contend that positive emotions play a critical role in
leadership influence. This stems directly from Frederickson’s (2003) broaden-and-build model
of emotional contagion in which a leader’s positive emotions can be infectious, creating positive
upward spirals in organisational learning and transformation. Indeed, a growing body of work
suggests that emotions drive decision-making and energy for change and thus are a
fundamental antecedent to organisational change (Barker-Scott, 2009).
Critically, the passion of leaders is intrinsically linked to perceptions of sincerity. For example,
when asked what leadership traits would encourage participation, Cody, who is largely
disengaged from CSR, said “their genuineness. It’s not just done to make us look good. It’s done
because they are passionate about it”. This reflects the relationship drawn by employees
between passion and perceptions of genuineness. Furthermore, a lack of passion has been
directly related to issues in achieving authentic leadership (Bhindi, 1997). “If a leader is not
passionate about what he or she does, there might not be a reason for him or her to be leading
in the first place” (Marques, 2006); a leader’s passion therefore provides guidance and
inspiration for those whom they are trying to lead. Indeed, as disengaged Aiden argues, having
leaders involved in projects helps:
[…] only if they are interested in the project. Not as someone who is there because then if you
know [David] is there, everyone else will fall into line sort of a thing. I think if there is
someone there supporting the project because they love the project and can talk
passionately to you about the project, bring it on. The more the merrier.
As Goleman et al. (2002), suggest effective leadership works through emotions. Emotions can
range from those that are highly positive, such as passion and optimism to those that are highly
negative, such as frustration and anger. Employees in their interactions with leaders are
exposed to such emotions, which subsequently influence employee feelings, attitudes, and
behaviours (McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002): “… if somebody cares and feels passionate
129
about [CSR], then you will be inclined to follow them. If they don’t, you won’t” (Austin, engaged
employee). Consequently, in the case of employee CSR engagement, employees identify positive
emotions demonstrated by leaders as driving them to engage in organisational CSR.
7.3. Types of LeadersAs is suggested by Knirsch (2005), sustainability only takes place when there is an active
manager within the company to champion this approach, making leadership within
organisations one of the most critical success factors in sustainability. However, CSR leaders are
not just responsible for designing and implementing policies but also for facilitating pro-
sustainable behaviour change. Critically, when exploring the role of leadership in CSR
engagement, focus must expand beyond traditional roles of management. While important,
guidance from management is not the only influencing form of leadership with a number of
other individuals leading organisational change.
Starting from the earliest modern literature on administration and organisation, it is
acknowledged that leadership may be exerted by anyone in an organisation. Within the
literature, it is suggested that leadership flows throughout an organisation, rather than being
confined by levels or hierarchies:
…[E]very act of influence on a matter of organisational relevance is in some degree an act of
leadership… we consider the essence of organisational leadership to be the influential
increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the
organisation (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 302).
Leadership subsequently emerges across and throughout organisations, with ‘authority of
leadership’ unconfined by positions (Barnard, 1968). This research therefore identifies leaders
from a range of organisational levels, all of who are perceived by employees to play a role in the
leadership of corporate social responsibility and employee engagement. This includes senior
management, middle management, corporate social responsibility teams, and sustainability
champions.
7.3.1. C-Suite and Board Level LeadershipWithin the literature, senior management is identified as being instrumental to the formulation
and implementation of CSR policies within organisations (Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004;
Waldman et al., 2006b). Due to the financial and human resources available to them, these
individuals are able to influence organisational change (Kasim, 2007). Senior management set
priorities and determine strategic directive, critically influencing the development of corporate
social responsibility within their organisations. As Agnes, a disengaged employee, reports, due
130
to the power associated with senior level positions, support and involvement in CSR from upper
level leadership is critical:
[…]in terms of making sure that these kinds of [CSR] projects are at the top of
the agenda in the company because if you start just from the bottom, it's very
hard for a company as big as [Organisation 1] to actually make something out
of it. Whereas if you see it on the senior leadership agenda, there’s more of a
chance to actually make things happen.
Consequently, employees recognise that beyond inspiring enthusiasm and engagement (see
Section 7.2.), due to their place within the organisation, leaders are critically positioned to drive
corporate social responsibility agendas. Nevertheless, as Murphy (1989) and Brenner (1992)
note, the institutionalisation of ethics must consist of more than drafting codes of ethics and
creating ethics programmes. It must also involve the institutionalisation of responsible
behaviour, which is dependent on top management commitment and leadership. As is
evidenced by this research, employees recognise the role of senior leadership in CSR as
extending beyond planning and policy making. Many interviewees felt that senior level support
for CSR was reflective of organisational values and priorities, setting an example for expected
behaviour within the organisation:
I think seeing your Senior Executives and your line managers set a good example and getting
involved is good for the business and is a good motivator. People who you respect and look
up to, if they’re kind of leading the way, I think that makes a difference in an organisation
(Annabelle, engaged employee)
The actions of senior leaders’ ultimately influence stakeholder reactions and can lead to positive
or negative sustainability performance (Epstein et al., 2010). A key factor driving positive
employee reactions towards organisation CSR identified by this research includes the visible
participation of senior management. Indeed, when asked if the participation and involvement of
senior management in CSR interventions helped to facilitate employee engagement, one
interviewee responded with an enthusiastic “hell of a yes! Yes, definitely!” (Cody, disengaged
employee). Interviews with industry professionals also reflected an adamant belief in the
importance of senior leadership support:
I think [leadership involvement] is everything. Yeah, I think it’s got to come from the top. […]
If the Board don’t get it, if your senior leadership don’t get that this is a big issue, it’s not
going to happen. And there’s really no…I’m just looking on Twitter because [this
organisation’s] just started its global month of service and it’s got pictures there of the Chief
131
Executive getting down, and pictures with the team and things like that. And it’s that kind of
leadership. You’ve got to know that your Chief Executive champions these issues (Isla,
industry professional)
Within the literature, research suggests that a leader is able to solicit desired employee CSR
engagement by participating in such activities as a role model (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014;
Ketola, 2006). The power and visibility associated with senior management positions means
that these individuals are likely to become role models for other organisational members
(Mayer et al., 2009). Therefore, as Brown et al. (2005) contend, senior leaders can demonstrate
how to behave in an ethically acceptable way and due to their visibility within organisations, are
ideally placed to lead by example when it comes to pro-sustainable behaviour change.
It is consequently unsurprising that employees interpret the visible involvement of top
management as meaning that CSR and participation in CSR is valued within their organisation.
Indeed, as suggested by one disengaged interviewee, Cody, some employees engage in
corporate responsibility simply because the organisation’s director has made it clear that he
wants to see people involved. Conversely, some employees negatively interpreted a lack of
visible support. A lack of senior management participation caused some employees to question
the values of leadership and the reasons why their organisation ask them to engage in corporate
social responsibility. For example, one disengaged employee, Barry illustrates the importance of
senior leadership support and demonstrates the ways in which employees can construe a lack
of buy in from management:
I think it’s good when [leaders] do things. […] We emailed the director of the company at the
time and said we are going to do [a charity event], here is our fundraising page, and one of
the girls emailed him a few times and we never got anything out of him.
So I think it’s all well and good that they can stand there and preach to us all about doing it,
but actually if they are not going to … they are the kind of people that earn thousands of
pounds a month and they can’t afford a fiver, so it can sometimes come across a little bit
hypocritical that they will tell us they are all really great things to do and we should all be
taking part in them but actually they don’t want to sponsor people.
It subsequently becomes clear that the visible participation of top management serves to
indicate how thoroughly CSR is embedded in the organisation, with employees indicating a
preference for embedded, rather than peripheral CSR. Indeed, throughout all organisations,
employees repeatedly suggested that if leaders are not actively involved in CSR efforts, when
employees themselves are asked to engage, they perceive CSR as being a peripheral concern,
132
rather than core to the values of the organisation. Consequently, as previously discussed in
Section 2.5., if CSR is not embedded but is peripheral, it may be perceived as inauthentic and
thus likely to evoke negative responses from employees. Therefore, as Brittany, a CSR
champion, explains, “I think the fact that they’re joining in as well helps because you’re not
going, ‘it’s them not at the top so they haven’t got to bother’. You know, they’re in there as well.
They’re getting covered in paint along with the rest of us”. The importance of organisation wide
support and engagement is further emphasised by Cody, who suggests that without the
involvement of all levels of management, CSR becomes “[…] a, ‘do as we say and not as we do’,
mentality, and that's just wrong”.
This is consistent with social exchange theory, which suggests that when individuals perceive
mutual benefits from interacting with a person or group to be high, they develop positive
feelings towards the other party, leading to feelings of trust, obligation, and mutual benefits
(Blau, 1964). Conversely, when interactions are seen as one-sided, distance between the two
parties emerges with individual’s subsequently limiting investments to minimise risk (Rupp &
Mallory, 2015). Consequently, by matching words with deeds, leaders showcase their CSR
actions as role models, proving their belief in the value of such actions and advocating them to
employees.
However, while the involvement of senior organisational members can be a driving factor for
CSR engagement, in some circumstances it can also be a hindrance. Lack of support from senior
management can create barriers to CSR engagement. For example, as Brenda, a CSR champion,
reports, as a result of lack of participation, “the team might think ‘hmm I’m not too sure about
taking that day off. I’m not sure what my manager will think’. Whereas if it was organised by
senior managers to go out then you’d want to, I suppose”. This is particularly problematic if
those leaders who do not support CSR efforts are embedded in key adoption processes and
practises. For example, within one organisation, the involvement of organisational directors in
decision-making slowed the CSR adoption process:
I used to find it frustrating that you couldn’t get anything past the directors necessarily but
they have stepped back and allowed us to – they get bogged down in enough meetings as it
is, and so you discuss something at a meeting and nothing would ever happen because no
one has had time to do it, whereas now we’ve got five or six people that genuinely want to do
something (Callum, engaged employee)
Senior management can act as gatekeepers to CSR participation and engagement; since they are
responsible for influencing and establishing organisational priorities within their departments,
a lack of support from senior leadership can lead to a trickle down of disengagement throughout
133
the organisation as middle management and subsequently their employees prioritise investing
resources elsewhere. Beatrice, who is currently engaged in CSR, explains the importance of
senior management support, suggesting “if you’ve got a director that isn’t interested, then you’ll
never get anything signed off by that department all”. It subsequently becomes clear that a
multiplicity of CSR views and opinions is not limited to individual employees, with
organisational leaders holding a range of attitudes towards corporate responsibility.
While antecedents to engagement at the managerial level were not the focus of this study, what
is interesting is the reasons why employees believe their managers or senior leadership team
refuse to engage. Critically, employees felt that management may not engage if CSR initiatives
did not have a clear commercial benefit, suggesting that if “they don’t see it as anything
commercial and it doesn’t impact their business area” (Beatrice, engaged employee). This has
clear implications for employee CSR perceptions and as is discussed in Section 8.2., can
negatively affect CSR engagement if employees believe their organisation engage in responsible
behaviour for economic, rather than ethical reasons. Another interviewee, Bridget, who is a CSR
champion, emphasised a lack of awareness on the benefits of sustainability, arguing that, “I
think some of them are quite set in their ways and might now be up to speed with the whole
sustainability thing”. If management do not understand or do not believe in the value of their
organisation's corporate responsibility strategy, they cannot be effective CSR leaders.
Furthermore, the ability of organisational leaders to critically influence the development of
corporate social responsibility within their organisations due to the power and visibility
associated with these positions is not limited to positively engaging employees in CSR but also
applies to those leaders whose behaviour actively encourages followers to disengage from
organisational CSR.
If indeed the antecedents to disengagement identified by employees are correct, organisations
must begin by communicating the importance of the CSR agenda to top-level leadership,
identifying commercial impact and clearly outlining organisational benefits. As is demonstrated
by these research findings, this requires different communication than that to employees with a
greater emphasis needed on the commercial benefit of organisational CSR (see Section 6.4.). In
addition, even if the benefits of organisational CSR can be communicated, due to varying
demands for their resources, those in senior management positions might find it difficult to
prioritise responsible behaviour when it conflicts with other priorities: “I think sometimes it’s
difficult to get kind of say directors or senior managers actually involved. They’re really kind of
for it but actually getting them to do something sometimes is quite difficult” (Becky, CSR
champion). Thus, arguably, organisational management may face similar barriers to
engagement arising from issues of CSR communication and embeddedness.
134
However, even if support is achieved throughout top levels of leadership, a further challenge is
faced with employee perceptions of this support. Given that the case study organisations for this
research were selected based on their active CSR efforts, it is unsurprising to find senior
management involvement in CSR across all three organisations. C-Suite and board level leaders
participate in fund raising marathons, volunteer days, and charity bake sales, to name a few.
Indeed, one organisation, recognising the influence of senior management support, organised an
event specifically designed to have senior leaders involved in a range of activities for which they
were responsible for generating support from their teams with the “idea [being] that each of the
senior leaders involved the rest of their team to take part” (Amber, engaged employee).
Despite the active involvement of senior leadership throughout these organisations, there
remain discrepancies in employee perceptions of leadership involvement. For example, within
the same organisation one employee described the active involvement of senior leadership with
directors participating in bake sales and charity bike rides (Christopher, disengaged employee),
while another employee in the same organisation had no recollection of senior leadership
involvement: “I can’t remember that we've had a director level involvement. They may have
been, but not that I can recall. It tends to be the workforce going round doing the bits and
pieces” (Charles, disengaged employee). Therefore in order to effectively drive employee
engagement through the active participation of senior leadership, organisations must therefore
also consider how this participation is communicated.
Nevertheless, despite inconsistencies in whether employees understood organisational leaders
to be involved or not, all interviewees agreed that the visible involvement of senior leadership
was critical to engaging employees in CSR. As Charles mentions, without involvement from
senior leaderships corporate responsibility “[…] just feels like it’s almost a game, doesn’t it?
Letting the kids play at this. But actually if there’s involvement from a director level, then that’s
going to make a difference”. As a result, addressing inconsistencies in employee interpretations
of leadership involvement is beneficial for a number of reasons. Research findings indicate the
visible participation of leaders as a driver to employee engagement in CSR; however, if
leadership involvement is not observed by employees, it is difficult for these benefits to be
attained. Employees desire to work for organisations that actively live out their values and
where managers “walk the talk” on policies and practises (Holbeche, 2004); a lack of visible
involvement can therefore impact employee CSR perceptions and views on leadership
genuineness, with the potential to generate feelings of cynicism and disconnect from
organisational CSR objectives.
135
Consequently, it is made clear that individual employee engagement is intrinsically linked to the
senior leadership of an organisation in a number of ways. In terms of CSR development, it is
these individuals who drive the adoption of CSR practises within an organisation. Assuring the
support of top management helps to convey the importance of CSR both to employees and
management, and assists in facilitating buy in from all areas of the business. Due to the visibility
of their role within an organisation, the actions of senior management is indicative of that
behaviour which is expected of employees. Conversely, a lack of senior leadership support can
undermine the adoption of CSR within organisations, particularly as it relates to perceptions of
genuineness and importance of the CSR agenda. In order to combat this, employees argue for
the visible involvement of senior leadership in CSR interventions.
7.3.2. Middle ManagementAs outlined in Section 7.3.1, much of the empirical evidence supports the view that senior
management is often responsible for establishing ethical norms within organisations (Agle et al.,
1999; Desai & Rittenburg, 1997; Robin & Reidenbach, 1987). It is nevertheless naïve to assume
that all managerial values are inherited from senior management. Indeed, research by
Drumwright (1994) demonstrates “… the all-out support of top management is not necessarily a
requirement for the success of socially responsible being” as middle managers can be change-
agents in and of themselves. Indeed, within this research, employees repeatedly emphasised the
importance of direct managers in facilitating employee engagement in CSR. Middle managers act
as “linking pins” and can perform behaviours that have both top-down and bottom-up
influences on strategy formation and implementation (Ren & Guo, 2011).
As is evidenced by Seijts and Crim (2006) and Kontakos (2007), employee engagement is often
a direct reflection of an employees’ relationship with their manager. Indeed, while there are a
number of factors influencing employee engagement and commitment, one of the most
influential drivers is seen to be manager-employee relationships. As one engaged employee,
Annabelle, reported, positive employee-manager relationships may drive employee engagement
in corporate responsibility: “I think seeing your senior executives and your line managers set a
good example and getting involved is good for the business and is a good motivator. People who
you respect and look up to, if they’re kind of leading the way, I think that makes a difference in
an organisation”. Alternatively, due to the power associated with this position, “even if people
maybe don’t care that much, they will do what they’re asked to do” (Beth, CSR champion). This
sentiment was reflected by other employees in their discussion of how their manager’s decision
to engage in CSR subsequently influenced their own participation. Aurora, who is currerntly
engaged in CSR, explained, “it was led by the line manager. They said, right, let’s do something,
and so then we did”. Similarly, Aiden, who is largely disengaged from CSR, suggested, “[my
136
manager] will just say, this is what is going on. Sports day, make sure you are there. Spring Ball,
make sure you are there. [Our charity event], make sure you are there”.
From a social identity perspective, managers are also uniquely positioned to balance employee
identities within subgroups (see Section 7.4.1) with that of the larger organisation. Subgroup
members derive social identity from their groups (Crane and Ruebottom, 2011), which can
create tension between groups if the identity derived from the subgroup is not consistent with
that of the subordinate group. However, some research suggests that an effective strategy for
managing inter-subgroup relations within a larger group is to make subgroup and
superordinate group identity simultaneously salient (Hogg and Terry, 2000; Hornsey and Hogg,
2000a; 200b). This means that subgroups, which may form across or within organisation
departments or divisions, should be made salient with the subordinate group identity.
Consequently, with not all social identities providing equally meaningful basis for self-definition
(Brewer, 1991), instead of activating identities that correspond to the superordinate level, it
may be more effective to activate identities that correspond to the ways in which individuals
prefer to define themselves. As suggested by Hogg and Terry (2007), managers may be able to
balance conflicting identities by involving employees in departmental activities and promoting
friendly interdepartmental rivalry, as well as facilitating inter-organisational orientation and
organisation-wide activities which emphasise positive distinctiveness and positive
organisational identity.
In addition to having a direct relationship with employees, the research findings highlight the
significance of middle management due to their ability to create line of sight for employees (see
also Section 6.4.2.). Interviews revealed that it was managers who were best positioned to help
employees understand how they were able to contribute to organisational CSR objectives. For
example, Asher, a disengaged employee, argued “it is probably your direct leader that you
would want to be involved, of your department, because you resonate with them”. Middle
managers are a key interpreter of how the sustainability efforts of the organisation link to the
wider systems in which the organisation sits and therefore, due to their intimate understanding
of the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of their teams, are arguably well positioned to
connect employees to CSR strategy.
However, one engaged employee, Alma, suggests that the ability of managers to create line of
sight is contingent on their ability to relate to other people. Furthermore, scholars have
highlighted the different perspectives adopted by those in senior management roles (i.e.
strategic) as against middle management (i.e. operational) roles (Burns, 1978; Conger &
Kanungo, 1992; Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik, 1998). Critically, because middle management
137
traditionally prioritises operational rather than strategic objectives, there can be inconsistency
in management support for CSR initiatives with not all managers prioritising corporate
responsibility. Additionally, despite playing an important role in the adoption of CSR within
organisations, little incentive exists for middle managers to enforce or encourage CSR. In
discussing key performance objectives (KPOs), management from one organisation indicated
that in terms of corporate social responsibility “it’s not part of every employees’ KPOs. At a very,
very senior level, your Operating Committee so the Leadership Team, they will have it in their
KPOs and their team might have it in their KPOs but a normal manager working in Tax, they
probably won’t” (Annie). Consequently, with their performance largely evaluated based on
financial results, very few managers have corporate responsibility formally included in their
KPOs. The conflict here, as acknowledged by Ackerman (1973), is that the burden for
implementing CSR policy is ultimately placed on middle level managers, who are simultaneously
primarily responsible for planning and directing the business operations.
As such, like senior leaders, middle managers can also act as gatekeepers to CSR by influencing
the prioritisation and participation of their teams and departments. CSR champion Bridget,
argued that a lack of support from managers can drive disengagement from organisational CSR;
It sort of deters people from doing it if they think they’re going to get in trouble with their
managers or their managers are not going to be happy […] If you get someone that . . .
because my manager’s quite open to everything it’s fine. But maybe if I were to have a
manager that didn’t feel that way, would that prevent me from doing stuff.
Indeed, even if a manager is positive or indifferent towards organisational CSR, perceived lack
of support by employees is sufficient to dissuade engagement; “With [our CSR project] I think
one thing that probably is a concern is that people think that their line manager won’t let them
go” (Beatrice, engaged). In addition to deterring employees who simply think managers will be
unsupportive, there are instances when managers actively block corporate responsibility
initiatives, such as that described by Bob, a CSR champion:
Bob: I have to get buy in as well. It’s getting from the top down because the managing
director want’s sustainability in there but to get it cascaded down through the team it needs
to go through like the head of the department and things.
Interviewer: And do you find there’s buy in from the heads of departments?
Bob: No, I don’t think so.
138
Consequently, while managers are well positioned to drive employee engagement in CSR
through regular communication, goal alignment, recognition, and role modelling, it is clear that
these individuals are not always equipped to support such activities and indeed, may drive
disengagement through their own lack of support.
7.3.3. CSR TeamIn most large organisations, communication of CSR is often undertaken by means of a separate
CSR function or department (Bondy, 2008; Brammer & Millington, 2003), referred to in this
research as a CSR team. Organisations may choose to operationalise their CSR team differently
in terms of where it is placed within the organisation and the responsibilities it is allocated. In
this case, two of the three case study organisations have formalised the CSR function by way of a
CSR team. For the third organisation, however, there is no formal CSR team with leadership for
corporate responsibility instead undertaken by a group of self-nominated employees from
across the organisation. For one organisation, the CSR team is autonomous, acting as its own
department, whereas for another, the CSR team is situated within the broader function
responsible for organisational reputation and responsibility. For the third organisation, they
have a CSR team that is a shared function across departments.
Different approaches to embedding organisational CSR result in different opportunities and
challenges for employee engagement. For the organisation that has a free-floating, independent
CSR team and the organisation with no formalised CSR team, employees raised questions
surrounding integration, and the prioritisation of CSR by their organisation. As one employee
noted, no formalised CSR team within the organisation could be interpreted as an unwillingness
to invest resources, both financial and human, in corporate social responsibility:
I think years ago it was someone’s full time job here. I think she moved on. And also with the
recession I don’t think it was replaced. But I think if it’s something we really believe in it
should be something that someone can do full time and you can really push things forward
and develop everything. So that is frustrating (Callum, engaged employee)
Indeed, as McShane and Cunningham (2012) argue an identifiable CSR function “formalise[s]
the CSR programme through policy implementation [and] signals to employees that CSR is
important to the organisation”. However, it is worth noting that the organisation with no CSR
team is also the smallest of the three organisations and thus considerations must also be given
for organisational size and subsequent availability of resources. Furthermore, due to its size, as
a smaller company the organisation has been able to successfully deploy CSR policies and
practises across the organisation without a formalised CSR team. This is evidenced more
139
formally by the industry recognition the organisation has received in terms of awards as well as
more indirectly by the general responses of interviewees.
The positioning of the CSR team critically impacts employee understanding and perceptions of
corporate responsibility. In part this because the positioning of the CSR team is directly linked
to CSR communication. For example, as demonstrated by one of the organisations, its placement
within the wider business responsibility and reputation department (BRR) means that elements
of public relations and reputation management are prioritised. Indeed, several interviewees
from this organisation mentioned the relationship between corporate responsibility and
reputation within their interviews, whether in roles related to corporate image and branding or
not. When inquired, Annie, one of the organisation’s managers, reflected that perhaps:
To a degree probably does work against us because people don’t want to engage with BRR.
BRR is a function that you talk to when there is a problem. You need a lawyer to sort
something out or if internal audit or- everybody’s scared of internal audit because they’re
checking that you’re doing the right thing on your project, and so the fact that we’re this
function, I think could work against us, whereas if you’re seen to be in marketing, you know,
marketing is exciting, fun, innovative. I think we would be perceived differently.
Furthermore, where organisations choose to place their CSR teams appears to impact employee
perceptions about organisational motives for CSR. Interviewees repeatedly drew connections
between an organisation’s motives for CSR and the business area in which the CSR team was
positioned. For example, employees in the organisation within which CSR is positioned with
business responsibility and reputation, continually drew connections between organisational
motives of image and reputation and organisational CSR. When asked why their organisation
chooses to engage in CSR, interviewees from this organisation responded with attitudes such as
“it’s really important for us to be seen doing the right thing” (Andrew, engaged employee); “of
course [CSR] helps also the company to build a good reputation” (Agnes, disengaged employee);
and “I think absolutely everything we do helps to build our reputation” (Annie, management).
Notably, none of the CSR teams were situated within Human Resources (HR), despite HR being
responsible for orientation, training, competency development, incentives and rewards, etc.
(Gond et al., 2011). Furthermore, it can be argued that HR professionals are well placed to lead
and educate employees on the value of CSR, develop responsible and sustainable practises,
communicate CSR activities, and provide direction, control and action plans for implementing
CSR programmes within an organisation (Inyang et al., 2011). As a result, it is perhaps
unsurprising that a growing number of researchers argue for the integration of CSR and HR (see
for example: Garavan and McGuire, 2010; Jamali et al., 2015; Renwick et al., 2013). While
140
outside of the scope of this research, there is room for greater exploration of the role of CSR and
HRM in employee CSR engagement. In particular, strengthening links between CSR and other
managerial functions might facilitate embeddedness of CSR throughout the organisation.
Unsurprisingly, as the CSR team is responsible for leading organisation wide CSR efforts, this
function requires support from senior leadership to ensure its success. As indicated by Andrew,
an engaged employee, support from senior leadership contributes to the visibility and
legitimacy of the CSR team:
The CR team has got a really good top-level support, which is really positive. What I’ve been
really impressed with is, as I maybe start to sort of focus on anything, it really makes us high-
profile, you know, in front of really senior people in the company. Even where we sit, actually,
is quite good for that.
Indeed, without organisational support, CSR teams can be viewed as peripheral add-ons within
an organisation, meant to placate stakeholder expectations for responsible behaviour.
Nevertheless, even with full support, Anna, who is engaged, noted, it can be employees who fail
to buy into the message of the CSR team: “people sort of knew that, ‘Oh, you work for CSR and
therefore you’re paid to do this and therefore it’s in your interests to keep talking about it’.
Although that’s not true, having someone else who doesn’t do CSR would be a great voice for it”.
As such, it is important to consider that employee scepticism of organisational CSR can extend
to different levels of CSR leadership beyond upper and middle management to affect the CSR
team. This reflects the importance of CSR champions, which are discussed in Section 7.3.4., as
well as the potential benefit of a CSR team that is shared across departments, rather than acting
as an autonomous function.
Lastly, consideration should be given to the effectiveness of the CSR team versus the
effectiveness of the people themselves that operate within the CSR function. As illustrated in our
discussion of leadership, individual leaders play a critical role in the adoption and dissemination
of CSR. Critically, key personality traits of individual leaders have been shown by employees to
impact the effectiveness of CSR leadership. Thus it could be argued that, at least in part, the
success of CSR engagement is dependent on individual actors within the organisation. This
subsequently raises questions surrounding the effectiveness of CSR teams outside of the
individuals who champion them.
7.3.4. CSR ChampionsWithin the literature CSR champions are repeatedly argued to be critical to the process of
corporate responsibility change and the enactment of sustainability initiatives (see, for example,
141
Blackburn, 2007; Robertson and Barling, 2013). Also referred to as sustainability champions or
change agents, CSR champions are those individuals who have a passion for sustainability and
aspire to drive their companies and co-workers to adopt pro-sustainable behaviour change
(Willard, 2009). Notably, while discussion of change agents began at the managerial level, in
practise CSR champions are wide reaching, spreading across organisations and spanning
rankings, functions, and regions. CSR champions are found throughout corporate hierarchies
and can include a range of both formally and informally appointed employees, as well as
sustainability professionals. In its discussion of CSR champions, this research narrows the
definition to those who fill voluntary CSR roles in addition to their appointed positions within
an organisation. This is consistent with the definition of champion as used by the case study
organisations and helps to distinguish between the leadership roles of those in specific
managerial or board level positions and lower level employees involved in disseminating CSR
throughout the organisation.
Each of the three organisations studied for this research takes a unique approach towards using
CSR champions to disseminate responsible behaviour. For one organisation, this involves a
champion network that is formed of employees from the UK office but is deployed worldwide in
order to help facilitate organisation wide CSR at an international level. Another organisation has
CSR champions who are internal to the head office and are split between both an Environmental
Champion network and a Charity Champion network. The last organisation also has an internal
champion network that instead of being split into different functions of CSR, addresses all
elements of corporate responsibility within the organisation. In one of the largest organisations,
champions occasionally recruited assistants or had entire sub networks of champions within
their departments.
Differences also emerge in terms of budget allocations for champion networks. The smallest
organisation was the only one to formally allocate funds to its CSR champions while the others
were reliant on out of pocket spending or petty cash. As a result, Becky, a CSR champion,
explains, in terms of resources champions are financially limited:
Because everything’s kind of being done on a very minimal budget, it’s kind of like you might
have really good ideas like we could do these amazing things but then you have to kind of
reign it in and think well, we can give up some time. We can use our time or any skills that
we have but yah, financially…
A lack of willingness on the part of organisations to invest in champion networks raises
questions surrounding the embeddedness of corporate responsibility. Furthermore, it may
negatively impact the ability of champions to lead pro-sustainable change since without their
142
organisation’s investment they may not be fully equipped with the skills and resources
necessary to be successful CSR leaders. The implication of champion power, or lack thereof, is
revisited in more detail later in this section.
Within the literature, there is a tendency to study best-case examples, which in this case would
be CSR champions. However, the continued focus on best-case examples fails to acknowledge
individual and institutional barriers that may restrict employee CSR engagement. Indeed,
critically, the antecedents to engagement for champions as identified by this research do not
reflect those opportunities and barriers acknowledged by disengaged employees as impacting
their participation. Consequently, it is arguably futile to study what drives the extremely
engaged in order to identify opportunities for engagement for those hard to reach employees.
For example, as illustrated by Bridget, champions are driven and enthusiastic about the
opportunity to come together with likeminded people:
[I]f you meet lots of different people with the same interest, it’s very you know, rewarding.
And you can make good friends and stuff from it. So in that sense I think it’s easier to work
with a team that all want to achieve the same thing. So the champions all want the same
thing, we all have the same feelings so ...
Due to the value dissonance of disengaged employees, it is unlikely that disengaged individuals
will seek nor find likeminded people through participation in CSR. Indeed, interviews with
disengaged employees correspond with this, with no disengaged employees identifying unity
with likeminded people as a driver for engagement or a lack thereof as a barrier to their
participation. Champions also identify their passion for sustainability and desire to have a
positive impact as antecedents to participation. For example, Andrea, who is currently a
champion, explains how it was her “dream at the beginning to work in corporate social
responsibility in a very big company […] so as soon as I got the opportunity to become a
champion, I thought okay, this is an opportunity to be in [my role] but also do something I’m
really passionate about”. However, having values that tend to differ from institutional norms, it
is also unlikely that disengaged employees will be driven by these opportunities. Nevertheless,
it is worth noting that there is overlap between the drivers of highly engaged employees, such
as champions, and those of moderately engaged employees who participate, though not always
consistently.
Nevertheless, while the antecedents for engagement differ between highly engaged champions
and their disengaged counterparts, the role of champions as a leader for corporate
responsibility is still pertinent. Specifically, CSR champions are valuable CSR leaders due to their
potential ability to translate and inspire their own business area with a sustainability strategy
143
that was designed elsewhere in the organisation. As Caroline, a disengaged employee, suggests,
it is CSR champions who can “take the top line that’s important and relevant to you and they can
relate that to you”. These individuals are well placed for critical CSR communication due to their
position within the organisation and though there are some inconsistencies in what champions
feel to be their responsibilities in this role, there is general agreement champions are
responsible for key aspects of communication, including promoting CSR interventions,
providing employees with key information about the project, its benefits, how to get involved,
and following up with project outcomes.
However, it must be noted that on the spectrum of engagement, CSR champions are arguably
those that the far end of the spectrum, actively engaged and fully supportive of organisational
CSR efforts. As a result, it can be difficult for these individuals to understand their less engaged
co-workers. This sentiment was repeatedly identified by highly engaged employees. As Connor,
a CSR champion, explained, “what we find challenging is people don’t get as interested about it
as we do. […] And I’m sure other [champions] that you’ve spoken to, I know [Sarah] would
probably say the same thing. That can be a bit frustrating where we’re like, ‘Come on, this is
great!’”. The feelings of highly engaged champions about their less engaged co-workers ranged
from confusion to frustration, with one employee even likening a lack of willingness to engage
as being akin to hating puppies: “And it’s so frustrating! It’s like hating puppies or something.
It’s like how can you not want to do good!” (Briana, CSR Champion).
In addition, as demonstrated by Post and Altman (1994), the effectiveness of champions in
engaging others rests heavily on expertise, top management support, and a strong appreciation
for the problems that every business unit or operations manager faces. However, due to their
overwhelming belief in corporate responsibility, champions often do not understand those
problems that other employees and areas of the business might face. This was particularly true
of highly engaged employees in the two larger organisations. When asked what might be
challenging about participation, interviewees frequently claimed there were no barriers.
Arthur, an engaged employee, explains, there aren’t “necessarily barriers, I think everyone can
participate some way shape or form without having actually to do a lot to be honest to make a
difference”, arguing that there is nothing challenging about participating in CSR interventions
because “I think if it was challenging people wouldn't do it”. However, evidence from the data is
to the contrary with a number of barriers to participation identified across all three
organisations and indeed, a number of employees who do not participate due to perceived
challenges.
144
In view of social identity theory, the strained relationship between some champions and their
less engaged co-workers may stem from social comparison, which HOGG identifies as a
fundamental feature of group life. Through social identification and intergroup comparisons,
individuals derive social categories through which they seek to enhance their self-conception by
positively differentiating their in-group from a comparative out-group (Hogg and Terry, 2000).
Group members may therefore develop conflicting relationships with out-group members in
order to enhance the positivity of their social identity (Tajfel, 1972; Tajfel and Turner, 1979).
Consequently, employees who derive meaningful social identity through corporate social
responsibility focused values may struggle to relate to members of out-groups who do not share
similar values.
The inability of some champions to relate to co-workers is therefore not conducive to
facilitating engagement and indeed can create unhealthy relationships between the engaged and
disengaged. Furthermore, a lack of power in less senior positions may mean that champions are
not in fact able to leverage the changes needed. Often times these individuals are not senior
enough to have sufficient positional authority to affect the necessary changes (Willard, 2009).
This is one possible reason that CSR champions often become ‘green police’ instead. Holloway
(2013, p. 15) describes the ‘green police’ as “those champions of all things environmental who
harangued colleagues about the power settings on their computers, kept an eye out for rogue
single-sided printing, and interrogated visitors about their transportation arrangements”. While
Holloway goes on to define these individuals as the ‘old’ type of sustainability champion, this
research very much supports the argument that this type of champion mentality and behaviour
is still prominent within organisations. Indeed, as is illustrated by Courtney, who currently
engages in CSR, the militant behaviour of some champions negatively affects disengaged
employees:
We had a discussion yesterday that someone who didn’t put their recycling in the right bin,
so [a champion] has gone and now moved their bin so it is next to hers so that now when
they go and put things in the bin they have to come by her so she can check which bin. It’s
almost done in a joking way but also in that you should be able to put it in the right bin. I
think people probably view [the champions] as gatekeepers to sustainability. So I think it
does because I wouldn’t want to then turn around to one of them and say, ‘Oh I did this really
irresponsible thing,’ because you kind of feel like they might judge you a little bit. Not in a
bad way but I just think it does… I think you would be more cautious about putting litter on
the floor.
145
The role of pressure as a driver and barrier to engagement is discussed in more detail in Section
8.7; however, it is noted here in order to highlight the division between different types of
pressure. Interviewees identify and distinguish between both positive and negative peer and
organisational pressure. Nevertheless, disengaged employees often highlight pressure from
their peers as a negative driver for engagement. For example, as Caroline, who is disengaged
from CSR, explains:
There are a few characters that would actually rifle through the bin and look for the culprits
because obviously… on Starbucks cups they have your name. So if you put that in the bin
then you are in trouble. […] It’s quite alarming. […] So we’ve had that before, so it’s a little bit
extreme perhaps.
Consequently, though it is enthusiastic employees who take on the additional role of CSR
champion, a passion for sustainability is not sufficient to make champions successful CSR
leaders and can in fact be detrimental to the CSR adoption process. These individuals must also
be able to link their passion to practical solutions that identify opportunities and barriers to
engagement for those employees who do not share their enthusiasm for sustainability. Indeed,
much like there are specific attributes for effective CSR leadership that apply more generally,
there are specific traits which make champions effective including critically, the ability to
effectively communicate and identify with disengaged employees. Nevertheless, even with the
right leaders in place, it is clear that champion networks may still struggle due to organisational
barriers associated with a lack of power and budget.
7.4. Organisational CultureStemming from leadership values, beliefs, and assumptions is organisational culture, which is
understood as a system of shared values and norms (Schein, 1983; Schein, 2010).
Organisational culture establishes customs and expectations in the workplace, including those
that pertain to corporate social responsibility. This research therefore identifies how
organisational culture impacts and is impacted by employees and their engagement in CSR,
particularly in terms of espoused values, behaviour, and assumptions.
Few pieces of empirical research have linked cultural fragmentation and CSR (Linnenluecke et
al., 2007). Two notable exceptions, however, include Howard-Grenville (2006) and Harris and
Cane (2002), whom demonstrate that the adoption of a ‘sustainable’ culture is impeded by
organisational subcultures, which can inhibit the dissemination of consistent and shared
sustainability values and beliefs. Using social identity theory as a theoretical framework, this
thesis subsequently contributes to the understanding of employee CSR engagement by
146
examining employee identification with subgroups and the resulting influence of these
subgroups on engagement.
This section argues that while an important function of groups is to provide people with a
framework within which they can construct a social identity, the literature has perhaps
overstated the importance of employee identity being derived from the organisation as a whole,
rather than with specific subgroups. Identification with the organisational is repeatedly
highlighted as both an antecedent and outcome of employee CSR engagement (see, for example,
Brammer et al., 2015; De Roeck and Delobbe, 2012; Farooq, 2016; Glavas and Goodwin, 2013).
However, it is well established within the social identity literature that individuals can have
multiple identities within the organisation (Crane and Ruebottom, 2011; Hogg and Terry, 2000;
Stryker and Burke, 2000). Consequently, this thesis argues for shifting focus from holographic
organisations, where it is assumed that individuals across subunits share a common identity or
identities (Albert and Whetten, 1985) to ideographic organisations (ibid) in which individuals
display subunit-specific identities.
Since organisational culture is able to foster employee commitment to corporate values
(Huczynski & Buchanan, 2007), employees who are subject to sustainability-focused cultures
tend to behave in pro-sustainable ways. Notably, however, not all employees within an
organisation share a cohesive set of values. The literature has recognised differentiations in
employee values through the discussion of organisational subcultures (e.g. Hofstede, 1998;
Martin, 1992; Sackman, 1992), suggesting that organisational subcultures may exist
independently of the core organisational culture with small groups of employees sharing
different sets of values, beliefs and attributes. However, despite their existence and influence on
important organisational variables such as engagement, this is an area that has not been studied
extensively in the organisational literature. This research subsequently addresses the potential
impact of core organisational culture as well as subcultures in relation to employee engagement
and corporate responsibility.
For engaged employees, core organisational culture influences CSR engagement in two key
ways. First, these employees are driven to engage in CSR interventions that are perceived as
fitting with corporate culture. When asked about participation, employees discussed the
importance of “[…] positioning [CSR activities] within corporate culture”, suggesting that
activities that fit with corporate culture help employees in “understanding the impact of the
activity [and] how it helps” (Aurora, engaged employee). For some employees this begins on the
first day as part of on boarding. Cynthia, an engaged employee, reports that for her company,
they emphasise the role of corporate responsibility in the organisation’s culture by having:
147
One of the directors tell all about what we do, why we do it, why we think we should, you
know be green, why we give to carbon offsetting. […] You know, [the director] does sort of
put in a why do we bother. Well because it’s the right thing to do. It’s morally right. That’s
one of his slides. It’s morally right. We should be doing this. It’s kind of like part of the fabric
of us.
When employees perceive that CSR activities are relevant to organisational culture, employees
see these activities as positive and favourable. Therefore it is unsurprising that in order to
succeed in engaging employees in CSR, industry experts suggest that a chosen intervention “has
to be very much in line with the company’s own culture” (Isabelle, industry professional).
Arguably, this is because if company culture fits with CSR activities, employees are more likely
to accept and institutionalise such initiatives more effectively.
Second, sustainability focused organisational cultures are perceived by engaged employees as
being supportive of participation: “A positive working environment and a positive culture, that
is where everybody is included, everybody is equal and there is an optimism about what you are
doing” one engaged employee, Annabelle, suggests, drives employee engagement and “[…]
improves the rate of participation”. Furthermore, as indicated by some employees,
sustainability focused organisational cultures reduce the number of barriers to engagement. For
example, according to Adam, an engaged employee, when asked what might prevent employee
engagement in corporate responsibility:
I can’t foresee anything [that would prevent participation]. I mean everyone is busy, but
that’s the kind of world we live in at the moment and I think this is something that everyone
finds time for and it’s actually very, very easy at this company anyway. […] And, I think it’s
just very much engrained in the culture at [our organisation]. […] But, this no, I can't see any
barriers to us doing this other than the fact that people may or may not wish to do it, but I
don't think there are any work or company barriers.
Indeed, support for employee participation in CSR is argued to be so engrained in the culture of
one of the organisations that managers hesitate to incentivise engagement: “we say this is part
of our culture. This is just our way of doing business so I’m a bit nervous about incentivising.
What I’d rather do is share brilliant stories with people who’ve done it and use that to really
inspire more people to do it” (Annie, management). Such is the strength of their organisational
culture that employee participation in CSR is expected to be part of employees’ daily working
lives and not an incentivised addition to the workplace. In addition, Idris, an industry
professional, explains that organisations without CSR focused cultures may be perceived as
being unsupportive of CSR engagement:
148
I think there is seeing that it’s outside of the company’s culture or expectations. And that
you’re going off message. Say you want to … you know, whether you’re working for a big PLC
or a small company, you know your efforts are really important. You want to make sure that
your effort is in line with the company’s efforts. So I think aligning your culture is important.
If you’re outside of that and you want to do something, you can’t. It’s not welcome. Then
that’s a barrier because you’re getting in the way of progress, aren’t you?
Consequently, for those who share in the values of their organisational culture and derive a
salient portion of their social identity from the superordinate level, organisations that focus on
sustainability can remove barriers to participation and encourage engagement through the
alignment of culture and activities. Furthermore, the role of corporate culture extends beyond
facilitating engagement with the impact of employee engagement on organisational culture
being reciprocal. Employees’ CSR participation bolsters their experience of the company’s
corporate identity, forming a self-reinforcing loop (Chong, 2009). Therefore, as Peterson (2004)
contends, employees undergo identification processes through participation in CSR,
subsequently sharing values with their organisation. As a result, employee participation in CSR
can contribute to embedding CSR further into organisational culture.
7.4.1. Organisational Sub-Cultures and CSRNevertheless, core culture as a driver for participation is contingent on a shared set of values
that disengaged employees may not hold. This raises questions surrounding the culture of
disengaged employees and the existence of subcultures within organisations. It has been the
pervasive assumption within the CSR and engagement literature that employees derive identity
from the organization as a whole. This is referred to as a holographic organization in which
individuals across subunits share a common identity (or identities) (Albert and Whetten, 1985).
However, in identifying divergent values and interests of employees that prevent at least some
employees from sharing in organizational identity, it is more likely that employees exist instead
within ideographic organizations (ibid) in which individuals display subunit-specific identities.
This has key implications for the ways in which management engage with employees as a
stakeholder group, as well as their engagement in corporate social responsibility interventions.
Though not expressly related to CSR, as one interviewee illustrated, the unique culture of each
organisation and indeed subcultures within an organisation, influence the ways in which
employees work and are driven to engage:
Yeah, retail has a very, very different culture to the rest of the business. It’s very, very
hierarchical so . . . So yeah, they’re very much as to what level are you on whereas in head
149
office we don’t really have that. It’s not our culture here. So yah, it’s a very different way of
working with them and how they work. So yeah, that’s coming from Sr. leaders and things
then they’ll start buying into it and stuff so ... (Beatrice, engaged employee)
The importance of this is twofold. Firstly, organisations must consider the existence and
implication of sub cultures. Though organisational culture often focuses on shared or common
values and behaviours, not all researchers agree that employees belong to the same, unified
organisational culture (see Awadh and Alyahya, 2013; Sackman, 1992; Hofstede, 1998;
Linnenluecke et al., 2007; Taylor, 2014). As Riley (1983) argues, it is critical to adopt a
“perspective of organisational cultures that expects organisations to have subcultures and
allows for rival images and competing systems of meanings”. This is consistent with recent
developments in stakeholder theory that suggest that even though as a stakeholder group,
employees are delineated by shared interests, typically in relation to the organisation (e.g. the
survival of the company), beyond this individual employee interests and priorities are likely to
deviate. As recognised by Annie, a manager, “culture is crucial [in adopting CSR], but there is not
just one culture that works”. There is a multiplicity of social identifies emerging in the
workplace, all of which have a fundamental influence on how CSR interventions are experienced
and how people engage with corporate responsibility. It is therefore important to understand
and identify organisational subcultures, as these culture types influence the ways in which
employees understand and enact corporate sustainability. Furthermore, with employees
deriving identity from both the superordinate and the subordinate level, organisations must be
sensitive to identities from different levels, with CSR manifest and practiced through each of
these lenses.
In the context of engagement, it therefore becomes important to give individual consideration to
subcultures that exist within an organisation and the views, expectations, and needs individuals
within these subcultures have in regards to corporate responsibility. Lok et al. (2011) posit that
because organisational culture is largely abstract and distant from employees’ engagement with
day-to-day realities of their organisational lives, aspects of the work context that are closer to
these realities, such as immediate leadership, work groups, and sub cultures will have a more
marked effect on employee outcomes. This is consistent with these research findings through
which middle management and group identity are particularly influential of employee CSR
engagement.
Furthermore, attempts at assimilation resulting from the pursuit of sustainability-focused
cultures may result in employee resistance. If, as this thesis suggests, employees belong to
subgroups and thus derive their identity from organisational subunits rather than the
150
organisation as a whole, they may view attempts at implementing a unified organisational
culture as imposed assimilation and therefore a threat to their identity. Optimal distinctiveness
(Brewer, 1991; 1993) suggests that people strive for a balance between inclusion, which is
satisfied by group membership, as well as for uniqueness, which is satisfied by individuality. As
a result, in large organisations, such as the multinational corporations examined in this thesis,
employees may face additional pressure to strive for distinctiveness and thus place greater
value on social identity derived through subunits and departments. Organisations must
therefore be sensitive to employees’ multiple identities, which may be derived from different
levels (e.g. function, team, department), with CSR manifest and practiced through each of these
different lenses.
Subsequently, the second implication for organisations is that disengaged employees may well
exist as or within one of these sub cultures. As both Howard-Grenville (2006) and Harris and
Crane (2002) demonstrate, the adoption of a ‘sustainable’ culture is impeded by those
subcultures that do not support the dissemination of shared sustainability values and beliefs.
Consequently, in order to support those hard to reach employees, this research suggest that
managers expand their focus to include organisational subcultures, which may hold unique
values and norms in regards to corporate social responsibility. Expecting and respecting that
individuals within an organisation may share different subcultures may radically change the
way in which organisations approach the issue employee disengagement from CSR.
7.5. ConclusionChapter 7 serves to connect individual and organizational level perspectives of CSR by
examining both the individual experience of employees, as well as the overarching
organizational context. Specifically, focus is given to the role of leadership and culture in driving
CSR engagement and disengagement.
This chapter establishes the role and importance of leader attributes. While research has begun
to explore the effect of leaders’ personal traits on organisational engagement in CSR,
significantly less is understood about the effect of leaders’ attributes on employee engagement
in corporate responsibility. Therefore with both genuineness and passion identified as key
attributes of effective CSR leadership, this chapter establishes that it is not only leadership
behaviour but also attributes that influence employee CSR engagement.
CSR leadership is also shown to emerge across and throughout organisations, unconfined to
traditional management roles. A number of individuals are recognised as leading organisational
change, including: C-suite and board level leadership, middle management, CSR teams, and CSR
champions. These individuals are able to encourage CSR practice through their own visible
151
participation and support for CSR. Conversely, managers who are seen to be unsupportive of
organisational CSR efforts can drive disengagement, both within their teams and within the
organisation more generally.
Critically, this chapter presents a view of CSR champions that identifies challenges to their
effective dissemination of CSR throughout the organisation. At the far end of the spectrum, these
individuals may struggle to understand their less engaged co-workers. As a result, the
relationship between the highly engaged and the disengaged may be characterised by confusion
and frustration. Furthermore, a lack of power associated with the CSR champion position means
that behaviour can easily turn to ‘policing’, which is shown not to be conducive of engagement
and indeed may foster disengagement.
Lastly, organisational culture is frequently recognised as driving employee CSR engagement.
However, as noted by this research, strong sustainability focused cultures may lead to feelings
of isolation for disengaged employees. This is particularly true for those employees who derive
their sense of identity from subgroups, rather than the superordinate group. In an effort to
achieve optimal distinctiveness in which employees balance inclusion and uniqueness,
employees who derive a sense of identity from subordinate groups may resist organizational
efforts form a cohesive sustainability-focused culture. This has implications for the ways in
which organisations engage with employees and can impact CSR leadership with managers well
positioned to balance employee identities within subgroups.
152
Chapter 8: Barriers and Facilitators of Employee CSR Engagement
8.1. IntroductionThis chapter addresses key objectives of this research by identifying driving factors that
influence individuals’ decisions to engage in corporate responsibility, as well as critically
analysing factors preventing this engagement. Specifically, it contributes to gaps in
understanding surrounding the antecedents to CSR engagement and CSR disengagement
highlighted in the conceptual model of Chapter 4 (see Section 4.7). This chapter begins with an
examination of general antecedents to employee CSR engagement and disengagement before
shifting focus to address those factors considered unique to disengaged employees.
Research findings identify drivers for engagement at both the project and personal level, which
are identified using the model for employee engagement as shown in Figure 8.1. In order to
understand employees’ overall views, the chapter is centred on employee CSR perceptions, how
they are shaped, and the impact these perceptions have on willingness to engage in corporate
responsibility interventions. This includes employee CSR attributions, perceived benefits of
participation, and views on CSR intervention design. This chapter contributes to the extant
literature by exploring the employee in relation to CSR and examining what factors affect
employee perceptions of CSR activities and how this pertains to engagement. Organisational
CSR efforts only influence employees’ attitudes and behaviours to the extent that employees
perceive and evaluate them (Barnett, 2007; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004) thus making employees’
CSR perceptions a central variable mediating the influence of CSR actions on employees and of
employees on CSR (Rupp, et al., 2006; Schaufeli, et al., 2006). Subsequently, by investigating the
consequences of employee CSR attributions as they relate to employee willingness and support
for CSR, this research provides additional insights to enhance both researcher and practitioner
understanding of the impact corporate responsibility strategies and managerial practises may
have on employees.
8.2. Employee Attributions of Organisational CSREmployee attributions of organisational CSR initiatives are identified as a critical factor
influencing employee CSR engagement. Specifically, findings indicate that employee CSR
attributions are influenced by whether organisational motives appear to be substantive or
symbolic. Symbolic, profit-driven or self-interested attributions relate to motives that are about
helping the firm increase its own welfare, whereas substantive, selfless or benevolent
153
attributions relate to
motives that have the
ultimate goal of
genuinely doing good
(Du, et al., 2007; Donia,
et al., 2016, see also
Section 2.5). While
there were comments
about organisational
motives by a number of
employees, it was
disengaged employees
who appeared most
affected by the
perception of CSR as
symbolic rather than
substantive.
In particular, these
individuals expressed an aversion to CSR programmemes that appeared to be driven by public
relations or cost cutting. Given the key role of reputation as a driver for organisational CSR
behaviour (see Section 2.7), this suggests a divergence in interests between the organisation
and a key stakeholder group. As a result, improvements to reputation, which may be perceived
as an opportunity for CSR by organisational leaders, may indeed act as a barrier to CSR
engagement for some employees. Given that CSR is often equated with green washing and can
be the cause of stakeholder cynicism (Chun & Giebelhausen, 2012; Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009),
identifying employees’ attributions of organisational CSR initiatives is both timely and
important. Furthermore, this addresses a key gap in the literature with those such as Glavas
(2016, p. 4) noting, “actual perceptions by employees of their company’s CSR have not been
adequately captured”.
A lack of perceived ethical consideration can cause negative employee CSR attributions and a
subsequent lack of support for organisational CSR efforts. For example, Briana, a CSR champion,
reflects upon employee reactions to a corporate responsibility intervention that appeared to be
driven by commercial rather than altruistic outcomes:
154
Current State of Engagement
Figure 8.1. Antecedents to Employee CSR Engagement and
Disengagement
Current State of Engagement
Future State of Engagement
Attributions of CSR as symbolicJob roleLack of timeCorporate FundraisingFinancial strainLimited options to disengageLack of centrality
Job roleLack of timeFinancial strain
Attributions of CSR as substantiveSocial capitalInterest and relevanceAutonomy and choiceEase and practicalityOrganisation’s financial support for CSRCorporate volunteering
To better understand the organisationProfessional developmentAutonomy and choiceEase and practicalityAltruismPride in the organisationEmployee organisational fit and identity
Highly Engaged
Highly Disengaged
Highly EngagedHighly Disengaged
[Printing paper] is probably one of the most contentious areas [of sustainability]. A lot of
people see that as just a cost saving and not actually a sustainability initiative. We had a
really kind of big debate in one of the meetings where we announced that we’d saved so
much on printing and because the CSR champions were saying it, we had this like massive
debate where they were saying it’s just so the company can save money, there’s no eco-
friendly element.
Nevertheless, while many employees express a desire for CSR to be driven by ethical rather than
economic considerations, for many organisations it is the strategic benefits of CSR that play a
central role in its adoption. Though improving the bottom line is not the only motive for
responsible behaviour (Vogel, 2005), as illustrated by the business case for CSR (Section 2.6),
many organisations are predominantly concerned with the tangible organisational benefits
received from engaging in corporate social responsibility practises. This may be especially true
within industries such as tourism and hospitality, which are dependent on the natural and
cultural environment for its survival and face high operating costs, as well as criticism from
stakeholders stemming from resource use. Indeed, as illustrated by Annie, managerial motives
for CSR are often centred on commercial rather than altruistic outcomes:
If we can reduce energy costs because we just operate more efficiently, that saves tonnes of
money. If we also work to reduce costs through our [CSR programmemes], energy is the second
highest cost to the business after people. So it’s all about cost saving. There’s a very, very strong
commercial case for everything we do and in that turn, that helps our reputation and our
image. It’s a win-win.
Though some organisations may not necessarily buy into the value of CSR programmemes
themselves, they do realise that failure to adopt such initiatives may put the organisations itself
at competitive disadvantage (Tsiakis, 2015). It is therefore not uncommon for organisations to
treat CSR as a risk mitigation tool (Kolstad, 2007). However, the genuineness of CSR initiatives
born out of this approach and the ways in which they are ingrained into organisational practises
may remain questionable (Lorenzo-Molo & Udani, 2013). Indeed, employees repeatedly
highlighted the need for organisations to adopt substantive, altruistically driven motives. For
example, Aiden, who is largely disengaged from CSR, argues that economically driven CSR can
appear disingenuous, suggesting:
What we have got to be careful of […] is making sure that it is not just like a massive money
saving scheme, so it makes us look greedy. I think there has to be a balance between [the
company] wanting to save all this money and you are like, well, that does not feel very
155
sincere. That feels like a cost cutting exercise. I have been in the [industry] long enough to
know there’s a difference between the two.
Consequently, while organisational motives for CSR are often driven by economic
considerations, the lack of perceived ethical considerations can cause negative CSR attributions.
These research findings suggest that one possible way to minimise employees’ negative
attributions of CSR is through leadership. As a mediator for employee CSR engagement,
leadership is discussed in detail in Chapter 7; however, it is again mentioned here in order to
highlight the impact of leadership participation and advocacy for CSR in addressing issues of
genuineness and the common critique of CSR as mere window dressing. This is consistent with
previous studies that have found a leader’s advocacy affects employee participation, awareness,
and attitude towards CSR interventions (e.g. Egri & Herman, 2000; Groves & La Rocca, 2011). As
such, if through leadership advocacy CSR is perceived by employees as substantive as opposed
to symbolic, this hold the potential to address challenges of employee disengagement.
8.3. Perceived Benefits of ParticipationIn addition to employee’s general attitudes towards CSR, individuals are driven to engage based
on the perceived benefits of participating in corporate responsibility. Employees reported
benefits in relation to the development of both professional skills and social capital. Notably,
variations occur in perceived benefits to participation depending on where an employee sits on
the spectrum of engagement. In particular, engaged employees identified benefiting from the
development of professional skills, whereas disengaged employees were more focused on social
capital, particularly in terms of team building. Consequently, by identifying perceived benefits to
participation and how these may vary amongst different levels of employee engagement, this
research contributes to the understanding the facilitators and barriers relevant to employee
CSR engagement. Furthermore, studying employees’ perceived benefits of participation allows
us, in turn, to understand benefits to this engagement.
8.3.1. Professional DevelopmentThough no employees directly identified CV building as a driver for participation, when asked
more generally about what employees might find beneficial about engaging in corporate
responsibility, interviewees such as Briana suggested, “it looks good on CVs and things like that
to have done stuff over and above” (Briana, CSR champion). The tendency of employees to
discuss CV building as a benefit to CSR for others but not for themselves may be attributed to
social desirability bias in which employees perceive non-altruistic drivers for CSR as being less
favourable. Indeed, one employee expressly described professional development as an
“underlying motive”, suggesting it “is probably in the backs of people’s minds that if I
156
participate, I’m going to be looked upon better by my co-workers’ and potential promotions and
stuff if you get involved” (Cody, disengaged employee).
Nevertheless, whether identified as an overt or underlying motive by employees, it is evident
that both employees and their employers recognise CSR as an opportunity to build important
professional skills. Employees describe developing skills such as communication, leadership,
and project management capabilities. One CSR champion, Brianna, is responsible for
interviewing potential new hires and contends that if employees have CSR participation on their
CVs “it would definitely paint them in a better light”. Beatrice, an engaged employee, agrees,
encouraging employees to “put it on their development plans” and suggesting that employees
who demonstrate they are involved CSR, particularly those programmemes with limited places
available, “if you’ve managed to secure one of those places, you’ve got something”. This relates
to two key antecedents of engagement identified in the literature, including promotion and
career planning as well as training and skill development (See Section 4.4). Indeed, Cook (2008)
identifies opportunities for progression as a key component in achieving high levels of
engagement in an organisation with opportunities for learning and development identified as
critical to employee success (Lockwood, 2007). However, it is worth noting that while CSR was
discussed as an opportunity for professional development, interviews with managers confirmed
that CSR involvement was not considered a mandatory key performance objective for the
majority of employees and as a result, its weighting in promotion application would be
unofficial.
Beyond developing general workplace skills, some engaged employees sought out CSR as an
opportunity to develop a greater understanding of the organisation. Interviewees suggested
that corporate responsibility may help them to “understand where they fit in just generally in
terms of the organisation” (Briana, CSR champion) and to “feel more connected to a broader
entity” (Alexis, CSR champion). For example, Beatrice refers to a volunteer for one of the
organisation’s CSR programmes, explaining that:
[Our volunteer] is actually coming from Finance this year and that was one of her reasons
for actually applying because she said that, I don’t know how many years she’s worked here,
but she says everything’s finance focused. And she went, ‘I want to actually stand up and look
at the business and see what else is going on’
Other interviewees also bring up this insight and concur with it. In particular, they highlight the
importance of understanding the wider organisational context due to the far-reaching impact of
hospitality and tourism. Through CSR, Caroline suggests, “you learn about the importance of
what you’re doing as a business. I think with our business it’s not the sort of business where you
157
can just do your job and not think about the wider world and the wider communities”. Section
3.2 examines the ways in which industry type influence organisational engagement in CSR;
however, employee interest in the impact of their organisation on the wider community would
suggest that in addition to driving CSR engagement at the organisational level, industry type and
subsequent vulnerability to criticism may also influence engagement at the individual level.
8.3.2. Social Development Social capital, which refers to connections amongst individuals (Putnam, 2000), was also
identified a key benefit and driver for employee engagement in corporate social responsibility.
Specifically, employees noted that CSR interventions contributed valuable teambuilding and
networking opportunities. The conception of the underlying relationship between people and groups is central to the stakeholder model of thinking. Consequently, in this section of the thesis, I extend this perspective on people’s relationships with groups to argue for the value of identity-based drivers leading people to engage in corporate social responsibility behaviours within groups.
Employee willingness to engage can be higher when subordinate, rather than superordinate,
identity is activated. People vary in how much effort they are willing to exert on behalf of the
groups to which they belong (Tyler and Blader, 2013) and thus, for employees who draw a
significant portion of their social identity from teams within the workplace, they may be more
wiling to take on additional responsibilities than they otherwise would based on their
membership in the organisation as a whole. Therefore, for some employees, subordinate
identities may provide a more meaningful basis for self-definition than superordinate identity.
Applying these ideas to the context of CSR engagement, it would seem that activating
superordinate identities might not be the most effective way of stimulating engagement in
corporate social responsibility. It subsequently becomes important to consider how to engage
employees who do not derive their sense of identity from the superordinate group.
Research findings suggest that the answer to this question lies in using subordinate identities to
connect the individual and superordinate identity (see also Section 7.3.2). In particular, team
activities emerge as one possible avenue by which to contribute to enhanced group identity,
which has key implications for employees who may otherwise feel isolated from organisational
identity. Teambuilding was a frequently highlighted driver for CSR engagement and was
described as building a sense of togetherness, camaraderie, engagement, team spirit, and fun.
Indeed, for some departments, team building was the sole driver for employee involvement. As
suggested by Bart, a CSR champion, teambuilding offers a way to engage those employees who
would otherwise be disinterested in corporate responsibility: “I think it’s the [projects] where
you do things as a team, that’s where even people who might not normally care actually enjoy
158
doing something like that and you know, working with people in the team”. This is consistent
with previous research, which suggests that group identity is able to combat feelings of
alienation in the workplace (Eckel & Grossman, 2005; Milton & Westphal, 2005). The
relationship between group identity and corporate social responsibility is perhaps unsurprising
given that CSR is positively related to high quality relationships amongst co-workers (Glavas &
Piderit, 2009).
However, while group identity provides an alternative means for employees to develop a sense
of connectedness outside of organisational identification, those such as Whyte (1956) and Ciulla
(2004) caution against the loss of individual identity. In particular, Whyte criticises social ethics
for morally legitimatising the pressure of society against the individual. As Ciulla (1996)
contends, social ethics rationalises organisational demand for loyalty; however, a growing
desire to achieve a sense of belonging may undermine a sense of individual creativity and
identity (ibid). Whyte (1956) subsequently dismisses the use of personality tests to single out
individuals who do not fit in. With an increasing effort in the workplace to build teams and
emphasise the value of groups, Ciulla (2004, p. 89) highlights concerns over the loss of creativity
and the submission of individual identity to group identity, suggesting that managers “care
more about the problem of the individual who isn’t a team player, and the majority of
management theorists today believe that groups and teams are the foundation of all that is good
and productive”.
Nevertheless, within this research while some employees struggled with the oppressiveness of
organisational identity, they did not appear to feel negatively about group identity. Instead,
social capital gained from CSR engagement provided employees with the chance to build more
personal connections in the workplace, which helped to create a sense of connectedness. When
asked about the benefits of participating, one disengaged employee emphasised the sense of
inclusion that comes from CSR socialisation, suggesting, “it’s nice to feel part of something. I love
… it’s a little thing, but when we do the sports day, I love that. Because it must be the only time
we all get together apart from the Christmas party” (Aiden). This is perhaps unsurprising given
that employees increasingly seek social fulfilment in the workplace. With work life and home
life in ever-increasing competition for scarce time and attention, rich social lives at work
correlate with fulfilment, pride, and meaning in work (Hodson, 2004). Though often disengaged
from CSR, Cody explains, with participating in CSR:
There’s an inclusiveness. What I was saying about the family thing. If you come to work and
it’s just 9:00 to 5:00 and you go home, then that’s all it is to you, right? But work’s so much a
part of your life. […] Yeah, yeah, the biggest thing you’re awake for, why not make it more
159
than that for yourself? That’s not something, they don’t put it in terms like that here, of
course, but when you do participate, it does give you more enjoyment to be at work.
Furthermore, when groups develop strong interpersonal relations, group identity may be
induced from individual group members’ contributions, thus making individuality a defining
feature of the group (Postmes et al., 2005). Teams subsequently enable identity to be
simultaneously drawn from individuality as well as group membership. CSR interventions that
facilitate connectedness may also address issues of disconnect for disengaged employees who
do not otherwise identify with their organisation. Identification refers to sharing of
organisational values and beliefs (Pratt, 1998) with willingness to participate in CSR strongly
linked to employee-company identification (Kim, et al., 2010). Employees often act consistently
with their organisation’s identity (Corbett et al., 2015); however, when individual employees’
identities do not align with the organisation’s identity this can create tension among employees
as well as between employees and the organisation. Nevertheless, while they may lack
connectedness to the organisations, connectedness to colleagues is also seen to drive employee
engagement (Hammond, 2011; Zigarmi et al., 2009), which in turn may translate into co-
operative and citizenship-type behaviours.
However, though disengaged employees identified a number of social benefits, Rhys suggests,
“[…] people are different. You know, if you’re outgoing, you’re active then it is easy to do that, if
you don’t have any ties it’s easier for people to do it. It’s just trying to find something or a
scheme that can balance all these mutations because there will be a lot”. Other employees also
identified personality type as a barrier to the social interaction characteristic of many CSR
projects, arguing that some employees may find participation discouraging if they are “less
sociable” (Charlotte, disengaged employee). As Agnes, who is a largely disengaged employee,
reports, “there might be some people that maybe, if they’re not that easy going, they might find
it intrusive in a way”. As a result, in order to address the diverse needs of employees, there is an
argument for greater autonomy and choice in employee CSR engagement (see also Section
8.4.3.).
Furthermore, engaged employees repeatedly suggested that in order for less engaged co-
workers to participate, disengaged employees must see a personal benefit: “if they don’t see the
personal benefit, they probably won’t participate. For me, it’s not about having the personal
benefit but I guess for others to participate it would be. ‘What’s the benefit for me? Oh, there
isn’t any? I’m not going to do it’” (Bridget, CSR Champion). The responses of other engaged
160
employees, particularly CSR champions, coincide with this. Nevertheless, bar one, disengaged
employees did not identify personal benefits as a driver for their engagement. This reflects a
critical disconnect between CSR leadership and disengaged employees. Consequently, while the
role of CSR leadership is discussed in detail in Chapter 7, it is mentioned here because CSR
leaders, including champions, are responsible for driving engagement within their teams and
yet fail to understand those factors driving disengaged employees. Furthermore, the argument
that there should be no personal benefit in altruistic behaviour implies that the only form of
altruism is pure altruism, with individuals only driven by the desire to help others without any
personal benefit (Batson, 1991; Andreoni, 1990; 1995). However, impure altruism, where an
individual donates to attain a warm glow but also because they care about the outcome
(Andreoni, 1990; Crumpler & Grossman, 2008), is prevalent not only within the literature but
also amongst employees all along the spectrum of engagement. CSR interventions can
consequently offer benefits to others as well as participants: “There’s definitely a feel-good
factor. There’s knowing you make a difference to something is definitely feel-good and, also, it’s
fun, the things that we get up to and do, there’s definitely a personal benefit of having a nice
cake that someone has made for you” (Christopher, disengaged employee).
It is also worth noting that almost no employees identified sustainability as a beneficial outcome
of CSR interventions. In fact, employees, particularly those that were disengaged, expressed
concern that CSR programmes and their benefits appeared superficial (see also Section 6.4.).
This results in situations where one disengaged employee, Alex, explains, “they’re the kind of
projects that it’s like ‘oh that would be great!’. Let’s take a moment out of our day job to
participate, and then we all feel good and go back to our desks”. As such, consistent with the
findings of Section 8.3, while generally supportive of sustainability, some employees felt the
benefits of CSR were diminished with CSR perceived as a tick box exercise.
It subsequently becomes clear that employees perceive a range of benefits as accruing from CSR.
Ideally, projects offer multiple benefits concurrently; reflecting on a previous project in which
she participated in a charity walk, Aurora, an engaged employee, suggests “it was nice because I
got to spend more time outside of work but also we knew it was contributing to the greater
cause as well. So if you can kill two birds with one stone, then I guess that is ideal”. However,
interviewees also questioned if employees always benefited from corporate responsibility.
Some suggested it depended on the project and the employee’s experience: “I think it is all
dependent on the experience you get there, which is not always… You can’t always control that.
You can’t always guarantee someone’s going to go and have this great voluntary experience”
(Amber, engaged employee). Consequently, due to the individualistic nature of employee CSR
161
engagement, organisations must think more thoughtfully about how to enact CSR initiatives
such employees from across the spectrum are driven to engage.
8.4. Intervention DesignIt is increasingly clear that employees exist across a spectrum of engagement. However, as
evidenced in the literature review (see Section 3.2), little is understood about the project
specific elements that influence employees’ decisions to engage in corporate responsibility.
While projects can vary from cycle to work schemes to charity days and recycling initiatives,
there are some features of CSR intervention design which are consistent and which findings
indicate directly influence employee CSR engagement. Research findings indicate that the
design of CSR interventions can be used to trigger salient aspects of employees’ social identities.
Examining the characteristics and features of CSR interventions therefore provides a viable
approach for predicting employee CSR engagement. In particular, employees discussed the role
of incentives in CSR engagement, questioning the appropriateness of incentivising an act many
felt should be altruistic. Interest and relevance of interventions, as well as autonomy and choice,
and the ease and practicality of participation, were also shown to play a critical role in employee
engagement. As such, by addressing key aspects of intervention design, this section identifies
critical drivers for engagement at the activity level.
8.4.1. Reward and IncentivesWhile the role of rewards and incentives in the workplace has been well documented, there
remains a gap in the literature directly addressing their role in employee CSR engagement.
However, what became increasingly clear from the research findings is that in general, for both
engaged and disengaged employees, there is an unwavering belief that corporate responsibility
should not be rewarded. It became clear that employees felt very strongly that the act of
participation should be reward enough. As explained by Barry, who is largely disengaged from
organisational CSR, “the reward should be what you got out of doing something like going and
helping a local community”. Aiden, who is also disengaged from CSR, questions, “why do you
have to be rewarded to participate? That is wrong. Surely you have done it because you want to
do it. Why would there be a reward? The reward is that you have done something. Am I missing
the point?”. Indeed, one interviewee even goes so far as to argue that it is not possible to
incentivise participation in CSR; if employees “[were] going to support anything, they’re going
to support it. If they’re not that fussed and there’s nothing else to really encourage them to come
out and get involved” (April, engaged employee).
The belief that corporate responsibility should not be rewarded was not exclusive to employees
with management from one organisation also hesitant to incentivise participation: “No [we
don’t incentivise participation] because it’s the right thing to do” (Annie). Nevertheless, this
162
contradicts much of the existing literature, in which reward and incentive programmes have
been shown to promote desired behaviours amongst employees (Gupta & Sharma, 1996; Leitch,
et al., 1995). Cook (2008) contends that the belief of some mangers that employees do not need
to be praised or recognised by doing what is expected of them may in itself be a barrier to
effective reward and recognition. Indeed, for one disengaged employee, a lack of incentives
indicated a lack of organisational support: “the company doesn’t really, other than allowing the
day off for charity, doesn’t really back these things” (Bart, CSR champion).
While overall there appeared to be little demand for rewards, organisations did still attempt to
incentivise engagement through rewards that ranged from matching employee donations and
an extra day of holiday to small give-aways or free coffee and cake. Nevertheless, employees had
limited awareness of those that were offered. Indeed, when asked, employees often stated that
there were no rewards given. Furthermore, even if employees were aware, they did not
associate rewards with being incentive for CSR engagement. In part this may be attributable to a
lack of clear understanding of what counts as a reward and incentive. Potentially exacerbating
the issue, incentive schemes were not necessarily labelled as such and some, such as internal
recognition systems, were not used exclusively to encourage CSR participation.
Further, for those employees that had identified existing incentives, some suggested that they
were not significant enough to drive engagement. For example, for one organisation that offered
a 10p discount for employees who used reusable mugs, employees reported that the savings
were insufficient motive to change behaviour. Employees also described more suitable ways to
drive engagement, including through intangible incentives such as recognition. Angelica, who is
disengaged but does not think that participation should be incentivised, instead believes that
“when somebody’s gone above and beyond to raise money or something, I think that should be
celebrated”. However, while another disengaged employee, Aiden, agrees “people deserve
recognition for [the things] they do”, he emphasises that this should be a desirable outcome, not
the sole driver for participation: “do not go into an event or situation wanting to get that as an
output, because you will be sorely disappointed at times. […] But when it happens, yippee!
Yippee! Everyone is happy”.
It thus becomes clear that there exists a multiplicity of reasons to participate, ranging from
financial incentives to recognition. There is a subsequent lack of consistency in employee CSR
engagement as engagement can be context dependent. As a result, disengaged employees may
not always be disengaged by choice but rather by context. Indeed, when asked about challenges
of CSR engagement, disengaged Barry reported, “It always conflicts. It always comes at the
wrong time of the month. You know we’re busy and you’ve got work pressures and you need to
163
get them done, but then somehow you’re expected to just drop everything and do the other
thing”. Recognising that engagement is influenced by individual circumstances further
contributes to our understanding of employee CSR engagement as falling across a spectrum.
However, as a result of the multiplicity of drivers for engagement, disconnect remains between
reward programmes and actual employee participation in CSR. Due to the range and diversity of
employees, organisations can face difficulty in selecting appropriate incentives for CSR
engagement. As O’Neal and Gebauer (2006) suggest, to be effective reward and recognition
schemes must first fit the culture and climate of the organisation. Thus, in whatever form
recognition takes place, it must be meaningful to those who receive it (Cook, 2008).
Consequently, in order to drive engagement, organisations must evaluate what kind of
interventions will be effective and for which employees. Furthermore, by evaluating the
importance of rewards and incentives within the organisation, firms may also be able to address
issues of CSR leadership. For example, while transactional leadership drives compliance based
on rewards, if rewards and incentives are not identified as an antecedent to employees CSR
engagement, employees may respond more positively to alternative forms of leadership.
8.4.2. Interest and Relevance of Intervention Critically, the findings of this empirical study show that employee level of interest in an
intervention is a driver for engagement, while simultaneously a lack of interest can act as a
driver for disengagement. While identified by both engaged and disengaged employees,
disengaged employees in particular felt very strongly that organisational interventions needed
to align with personal interests. Barry, a disengaged employee, for example, argues that “I am
not against charity, it is just the particular charity that is always forced down our throat, you
know?”. The belief that employees should have an interest in projects is perhaps unsurprising
given that while engaged employees may participate simply because they believe “it’s the right
thing to do” (Cynthia, engaged employee), disengaged employees who do not share this
conviction may subsequently be more reliant on congruence between activities and personal
interests.
Indeed, according to Courtney, an engaged employee, employees won’t participate in
interventions “if they don’t care about what it is [or] if it’s a charity or project or something they
don’t really have any allegiance to or it’s not much interest to them”. Interviewees suggest that
when there is a personal connection to CSR, employees are more invested emotionally and more
driven to engage. For example, as one disengaged employee, Christopher, explains, “there was a
hospital out in Africa that we support because one of our old product managers got malaria and
ended up being treated in it. So there are often personal ties”. Within the extant psychology
literature, emotions are a central element in motivation and behaviour (Cartwright & Holmes,
164
2006). Definitions of employee engagement are frequently characterised by emotional
commitment, including that by Shuck and Wollard (Shuck & Wollard, 2010, p. 103) in which
they describe engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional and behavioural
state directed toward desired organisational outcomes”. Likewise, Kahn (1990, p. 694) defines
engagement as “the harnessing of organisation members’ selves to their work roles; in
engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally
during role performances”. Employees who are engaged in work are therefore more likely to
exhibit an emotional connection toward their workplace (Kahn, 1990; Wagner & Harter, 2006).
It is subsequently reasonable to assume that engagement in CSR interventions similarly
requires an emotional commitment from employees.
As evidenced by this research, interviewees are more likely to be able to relate to and
understand projects for which they have a vested interest. This includes projects which are
personally relevant or of interest to an employee, or as some interviewees suggested, simply
because they are in the local community: “It’s really nice when you get to choose local charities
or charities that actually mean something to you”, Cynthia, an engaged employee, explains, “So
my mom had Parkinson’s so we did something for her. […] We also did something for our local
homeless charity”. Critically, employee buy-in and support for corporate responsibility
interventions directly relates to interest in and perceived relevance of projects. Therefore, CSR
interventions can be used to trigger salient aspects of employees’ social identity, such as
membership in the local community, subsequently driving CSR engagement.
In order to align employee interests with CSR interventions, however, a greater level of
employee involvement is necessary in the design and development of CSR. CSR is inherently
participative in nature (Kumar and Tiwari, 2011), involving all stakeholders. Companies must
therefore engage employees in dialogue in order to determine which social and environmental
issues matter most to them. Nevertheless, within the case study organisations strategies
designed to engage employees in the design and development of CSR were limited to voluntary
roles on green teams or as CSR champions, through the voting or submission of ideas, and for
some, the autonomy within teams to select which charities to donate time or money to.
However, many of these strategies for employee involvement, while utilised by highly engaged
employees at the far end of the spectrum, did not facilitate engagement with employees from
the other end of the spectrum. As a result, disengaged employee remain excluded from
organisational dialogue surrounding corporate social responsibility.
One employee goes on to suggest that if an employee did not like the charity itself, but was
interested in the intervention, this was enough to drive engagement. “I said before that I am not
165
going to raise any more money for this charity”, reported disengaged Barry, “but I really enjoy
being in the choir, and then they did a charity single this year, and it is obviously for that charity
as well, so I was like well I am doing it more for the singing side of things”. Similarly, an interest
in cycling also drove Barry to participate in a fundraising bike ride, despite not supporting the
charity for which the organisation was fundraising. Such was the importance of personal
interest in projects that employees who were actively engaged in pro-sustainable behaviour
outside of work, refused to engage in CSR in the office if they felt no personal connection to
projects. For example, Rhys, who volunteers with people with disabilities, explains how he
chooses to participate in projects outside of work for which he feels more passionately, rather
than engaging with CSR at work. As a result, employee behaviour is not fixed but rather varies
within different contexts and under different conditions.
A further challenge, as Bridget explains, is that “sometimes it’s not the most interesting
sustainability work and that’s why it’s hard to get people engaged. You know it’s not as if ah,
we’re going to Mexico to hatch baby turtles”. This suggests a lack of understanding of what
corporate social responsibility entails, highlighting once more the importance of CSR
communication within organisations (see also Section 6.4). In order to get employees interested
in in corporate responsibility, one employee suggested choosing more general and relatable
charities, such as fundraising for cancer:
So if you do something for cancer, I think people are a lot more willing to do it, because it is
something that has affected everyone. So I think the chance, the actual chance to choose
your charity would be a lot more beneficial for people and would encourage people a lot
more (Barry, disengaged employee)
Nevertheless, “alignment is an issue”, says Amber, who is engaged, because the organisation
“can’t always support everyone’s charities. We have over 1000 requests a year, just coming to
our team, so we’d have no money left if we actually sponsored them all”. Consequently while
organisations aim to be flexible and offer variety, it can be difficult to strike an appropriate
balance between organisational resources and capabilities and the interests of employees. This
is consistent with findings in the literature that suggest that organisations are challenged by
employee expectations and the expectation-performance gap with finite company resources
unable to address all issues[ CITATIOn Hau10 ]. Those that take priority over others may
conflict with employee expectations for CSR which can be exacerbated by rising awareness of
sustainability issues, increasing employee expectations regarding the extent of organisational
contribution to the resolution of these problems (ibid). Organisations must therefore manage
multiple identities in order to avoid potentially harmful misalignments (Balmer & Greyser,
166
2003). As suggested by van de Ven (2008), if a promise/performance gap is discovered, an
organisation runs the risk of being accused of hypocrisy and deception.
8.4.3. Autonomy and ChoiceEmployee interest in CSR interventions is inherently linked with autonomy and choice. As
Annabelle, an engaged employee, suggests, engagement is driven by “having the flexibility to do
more – I think flexibility is the key, so the more kind of flexibility you have to do the activity
when you want to do it, or how you want to do it is key”. Indeed, within the literature, the
provision of choice is repeatedly highlighted as a common and effective vehicle through which
managers can empower employees (Chua & Iyengar, 2006). In particular, when it comes to
extra role behaviour, autonomy in the workplace may provide employees with the necessary
discretion and latitude to perform those tasks that fall outside of formal job requirements (Bell
& Menguc, 2002). These research findings subsequently contribute to the understanding of
employee engagement, with variations across the three case study organisations highlighting
key implications of employee autonomy and choice in corporate responsibility.
While two of the three case study organisations aimed to provide employees with some degree
of autonomy and choice, the third was more limited. While employees were able to decide how
to spend their annual volunteer days, the charity for which the majority of organisational
fundraising efforts were directed was chosen by the organisation itself. As a result, employees
such as Barry expressed frustration at not being given the freedom to contribute to a charity for
which they felt more passionately:
There’s all sorts of fundraising but the thing is, it is always for this charity and if you try and
do something for another charity they aren’t so willing to put the word out as much about it
for you. […] I would rather support something like a cancer charity because I lost my mum to
cancer. But if you’re not supporting the company’s main charity, they are not so quick to go
and advertise it out for you.
Some research suggests that in order for organisations to successfully engage in corporate
philanthropy, social engagement should be professionalised. For instance, drawing on an
example from a Swiss producer of armoured vehicles, Bruch and Walter (2005) argue that in
order to justify funding decisions to stakeholders and thus create transparency, employees’
personal interests should be secondary in donation decisions. Instead of employees selecting
charities on an ad hoc basis, organisational guidelines dictate specific categories of strategic
company interest towards which CSR efforts must be directed. Furthermore, Eger (2016)
identifies the role of trust in the selection process, suggesting that the formality of project
selection is also contingent on the degree of trust and familiarity in the other party.
167
However, while increasingly difficult to control the selection process when employees are
involved, research findings indicate that it is personalised, rather than professionalised, social
engagement driving successful corporate philanthropy. Data suggests that from the perspective
of employees, it is when organisations provide autonomy and choice that they gain legitimacy in
the eyes of internal stakeholders. For example, when asked about the ideal CSR intervention,
Aiden, who is currently disengaged, describes a project where:
[it] felt we were doing something that had value. And I think we would want to be…we would
want to decide where the output of that goes. If we had a…you know if [our company] had 4
or 5 charities, and we said okay, well this is the one we have chosen. Or you know, we can
pick and mix any of those […] then that would make it feel a lot more cohesive. Like you have
made a decision based on your view, rather than a decision has been made for you.
There is subsequently room within company policy for organisations to facilitate employee’s
personal preferences for CSR engagement. By providing employees with the autonomy to
position themselves and the tools to mobilise themselves along the spectrum of engagement,
organisations are able to remove barriers to participation. This is consistent with self-
determination theory, which proposes that individuals perceive their social contexts as
providing varying degrees of autonomy, which then dictates the extent to which they view their
behaviour as being self-determined (i.e. intrinsically motivated) (Rupp, et al., 2013a). Indeed,
Rupp et al. (2011) argue for the usefulness of considering the CSR-related relative autonomy of
organisational contexts and the extent to which individuals are provided autonomy in
participating in, advocating for, and implementing CSR-related initiatives on behalf of the firm.
Conversely, while Barry and Aiden express desire for greater autonomy, other employees
describe the benefits of the freedom provided by their organisations. The ways in which
autonomy and choice materialise in the second and third organisation occur in different ways;
for one organisation, it meant that CSR was more loosely interpreted with the CSR interventions
including cycling, bouncy castles, office congas, and kayaking (Alyssa, engaged employee). Given
plenty of choice as well as the freedom to design their own interventions, employees frequently
described CSR as fun and engaging, which indeed, was the aim of the organisation: “We try to
make it fun. We don’t want it to just be a – you know, a donation, they work as well by the way, a
donations box by the front door, but that’s not particularly interesting. It’s supposed to be fun,
having a bit of a laugh” (Annie).
In order to support the diversity of CSR interventions, Arthur, who is engaged in organisational
CSR, argues that it’s about “giving people the tools and the support and everything at their
fingertips to be able to raise and do fundraising”. With employees equipped to design tailored
168
CSR interventions, corporate responsibility efforts subsequently “cater to a wide spectrum of
people, whether or not it’s somebody who wants to do a walk or whether or not it’s somebody
who wants to do a bike ride. You can take your own lead” (April, engaged employee). However,
the negative implications, which are discussed in more detail in Section 7.5., included confusion
over what constitutes a CSR intervention and how employee participation contributes to CSR
goals. Consequently, in addition to requiring the organisation to verify a much broader range of
initiatives, as Annie suggests it sometimes gets “a little bit silly. ‘I promise to smile at
[customers], well, that’s your job! So it’s got to be something different and above and beyond”.
In the third organisation, departments were given the freedom to choose a charity and could
decide for themselves how they wanted to support their chosen charity. However, a lack of
guidance meant that employees sometimes struggled to come up with innovative ways to
engage with CSR. Employees identified limited choice as a barrier to engagement, particularly
when CSR began to feel repetitive, suggesting the potential novelty of CSR engagement. As
Charles, who is disengaged, suggests, “maybe people just felt the same as me. Like oh, it’s more
food, it’s more money, and so didn’t bother coming”. This raises key questions surrounding the
compromise between bottom-up and top-down approaches to CSR. Due to previous failings of
top-down approaches, bottom-up approaches to sustainability have increasingly emerged
within both practise and research (Fraser, et al., 2005); however, while the sustainability
management literature stresses the need for stakeholder involvement, as evidenced by this
research, organisations are also challenged by participatory processes in CSR adoption and
dissemination.
Employees’ lack of inspiration, coupled with the high frequency of projects, which took place
throughout the year, meant employees repeated ideas often and almost always relied on
corporate fundraising. The consequences of this appeared to be twofold. Firstly, an overreliance
on corporate fundraising created tension and resentment in the workplace (see Section 6.3.).
Secondly, repetition of projects was directly related to employee interest: “It needs to be a bit
more interesting. So we had one last year, which I know was the biggest raiser, but you could
win an extra day off. You know, this was huge. Rather than buying cakes and sweets and things”
(Charles, disengaged employee). Consequently, though employees were generally opposed to
CSR incentives (see Section 7.5.1.), there appears to be space for positive reward mechanisms,
particularly those that are driven by a fusion of virtue and personal gain.
Challenges of autonomy and choice are faced by all three organisations as they struggle to
engage a diverse range of employees. As Austin, an engaged employee, proposes, it “is also as
much of a challenge of trying to find different ways for people to express their participation”.
169
However, finding appropriate ways to engage employees is a fine balance. Indeed, some
employees identified over diversity of projects as a barrier to their engagement. High levels of
diversity drove employee cynicism in a few key ways. It caused employees to question the
clarity of organisational CSR objectives as well as the validity of chosen CSR interventions:
“there’s so much going on, I am quite negative towards it because before you know it, you know,
a lot of money’s gone down off to charity and, you know, how do you select which one to
choose? I’m very, very selective of what I choose to support” (Rhys). As Christopher, who is
disengaged from organisational CSR, suggests, “people don’t believe in it because there are so
many that come round. They are just like, ‘What!? Another charity!?’”. It is possible that the
diversity in choice dilutes the belief of employees in their organisations CSR efforts, indicating a
possible need for consolidated charities.
Employees also expressed concern over the choice to disengage. Disengaged employee,
Caroline, contends that as part of giving employees choice, “people should be encouraged to say,
‘I’m just not interested,’ or, ‘It doesn’t appeal to me,’ and then not for that to be challenged but
for them to have the opportunity to express why they are not interested and for that to be
accepted”. “If it feels quite mandatory,” Agnes explains, “then I’m like no, because it loses its
purpose”. This emphasises the increasing importance of employee connection and interest to an
activity. Consequently, in order to prevent employees from feeling cynical, Caroline, who is
largely disengaged from organisational CSR, emphasises the importance of:
Explaining that there’s a choice, having a group of people that are genuinely interested in it
and are there to explain to people who aren’t so interested, or who kind of want to know
more but perhaps don’t understand. I think it’s coming from the staff itself, it comes from
within and it’s not coming from the top, then it’s going to be more natural and more honest.
This sentiment is shared by other employees and is largely linked to the role of CSR leadership,
which is the focus of Chapter 8. Employees identify militant or controlling behaviour, which
limit autonomy and choice, as key drivers of disengagement. For example, when asked what
types of leadership behaviour might discourage employees from participating, Aiden, a
disengaged employee, was quick to reply:
George Orwell. Exactly that. Oppressive. […] And let us say that without personal choice, that
is not right. We should not be corralling or forcing people into a situation. So I think the
whole point of this is, from my point of view, I do things that I want to do because they give
me a certain amount of like satisfaction. I do not have a boss saying Aiden, get on with this
shit. It will not happen like that.
170
This has key implications with employee autonomy, including the choice to disengage, linked to
employees’ sense of belonging within the organisation. Research by Lewis (2000) indicates that
a sense of belonging within the workplace requires a deep, social acceptance of differences. This
is consistent with findings by Tierney et al. (2002), which suggests a positive association
between group acceptance and extra role behaviour.
8.4.4. Ease and Practicality of ParticipationEmployees repeatedly suggest that both they and their co-workers need sustainability to be
easy. Recognising this, CSR leaders discuss a number of strategies used to simplify CSR
engagement. For example, in order to encourage recycling one organisation has limited bins to
one per team but has installed multiple recycling points so that it is easier for employees to
recycle, rather than throw rubbish away. According to one manager, Annie, “the key is to make
it easy for people and to take away the hard work”. CSR leaders from other organisations echo
this sentiment; as one engaged employee, Cynthia, suggests, “other than holding people’s hands
and taking them there’s not a lot else we can do really”.
Critically, an analysis of exiting managerial practises highlights the persistent perception of CSR
initiatives as separate from existing organisational objectives, culture, and values. With CSR
frequently treated as an add-on, there is increasingly an argument for amending organisational
norms to further embedding CSR into everyday organisational functions. Similarly to choice
editing which is often used to direct consumer choice towards responsible choices, embedding
sustainable options within the workplace can contribute to the ease and practicality of CSR
engagement for employees.
The ease and practicality of participation also links to specific job role responsibilities and
characteristics. For example, as Christopher, who is disengaged, explains, CSR interventions that
take place during lunch are subject to low employee engagement from the sales department.
Due to the nature of their position, employees in the sales team “aren’t allowed off their phones.
They have to be staggered. Having more support to get them off the phones and come [to
projects] would make a difference”. Alternatively, Bridget, a CSR champion, discusses the
implications of contract workers, who make up a large proportion of her department: “they’re
not full time employees. They don’t get the same benefits. You know, we get a day in lieu or paid
to go do these days so that might not actually be applicable to them”. CSR leadership
subsequently plays a critical role in supporting employee CSR engagement. A detailed analysis
of CSR leadership is provided in Chapter 8 but it should be noted here that CSR leaders play an
important role in the ease and practicality of participation for employees. Rhys recognises the
importance of organisational support, arguing that “if the company’s not flexible enough then it
doesn’t work and so you can quite easily hit brick walls and those little things can really, you
171
know, stop the momentum and the take up for want of another word”. However, even with
leadership support, some job roles are simply not conducive to certain pro-sustainable
behaviour. A CSR champion, Becky, for example, describes the necessity of printing charts and
maps within her department, “you are printing a lot but if that’s necessary for the role and if
that’s how we need to operate then fine”.
In addition, employees may face barriers to engagement due to the practicality or feasibility of
participation. For example, one CSR champion, Bart, explains how his organisation subsidises
employees’ train fares in order to encourage less people to drive but suggests that while “there’s
a lot of people that use it, it just doesn’t work for everybody. If you live on that [one] line then
great […] otherwise it just doesn’t work. You could sort of drive for four or five miles to the
station or drive for seven miles to work”. Rhys found similar issues with the office car pool
scheme, finding it difficult to coordinate schedules and work demands: “the hours around the
business just don’t work. I was sharing with an IT guy but the demands of his work made it
quite hard for me to keep it going so unfortunately, it naturally stopped”. Employees that would
have otherwise participated find reasons not to engage: “We do this thing each year about
coming into work any other way than driving. Me, I can’t do it because I’ve got kids that I have to
run around but I totally would. I’d be totally down with it” (Cynthia, engaged employee).
Reflective of the diversity of individual needs and the contextual dependency of CSR, it thus
becomes important to recognise that not all CSR interventions will be relatable or practical for
all employees. With one-hundred percent engagement not likely to be feasible, organisations
should instead strive to offer a variety of opportunities for engagement, such that employees
might engage and disengage in different contexts.
Sometimes though, projects are impractical not due to personal barriers but rather
organisational ones. For example, in order to reduce printing, one organisation went digital and
installed screens in meeting rooms; however, according to Brittany, a CSR champion, “if you’ve
got a laptop, that’s great because you can plug it in and view it on the screen. But most of us
don’t have them. And if you’re in a meeting and you’ve got no managers, because it’s essentially
mangers that have got laptops, if you haven’t got a manager there you still have to print things
off”. Reflecting on internal organisational assumptions and decision-making in regards to
corporate responsibility, situations such as this highlight the value of participative decision-
making that increases the level of employee involvement (see also Section 6.4).
Furthermore, time was repeatedly identified as a barrier to engagement. Charlotte, who
struggled to engage in CSR, explained, “I did enjoy doing it. But it’s also trying to find the time
sometimes. Because if you’re quite busy it’s like you’ve got to do that as well it’s a bit like oh
172
god”. Other interviewees also brought up this insight and concur to it. This may result in
situations where, according to Aurora, who is engaged, “if I want to achieve my targets this year,
or I don’t want to have to work really, really late, then I need to prioritise my work, but yes I will
try and get involved, but not as actively as I would like to be”. Time as a driver for
disengagement also contributes to the argument made in Section 6.2 for embedding CSR within
the daily working life of the organisation. By using choice editing and integrating CSR into
existing practises, the challenge of time as a barrier to engagement can be minimised.
Arguments within the literature also suggest that responsible behaviour fails to manifest is due
to challenges associated with behaviour change (Gifford, 2011; Vlek & Steg, 2007). Prior
research suggests a value action gap, where an individual’s values do not align with their
behaviour, is particularly prevalent with sustainable behaviour. However, Rhys argues that
when it comes to corporate responsibility, “there’s just more complications for employees than
people like to realise”. This is consistent with research by Blake (1999), which highlights
practicality as one of the key barriers to action that cause the value-behaviour gap. Indeed,
employees may face barriers organisations are not even aware of. Consequently, in order to
facilitate greater engagement, organisations must identify and address activity level barriers
that impact the ability of employees to engage in CSR.
8.5. Intervention FitFindings indicate that employees make judgments about the authenticity of organisational CSR
interventions and that in turn, these judgements affect employee CSR engagement. In particular,
employees determine authenticity based on the fit between interventions and organisational
culture. This concept is also known as centrality (Burke & Logsdon, 1996) and is indicative of
congruence between CSR initiatives and both organisational culture and organisational
objectives (i.e. mission, values, and objectives). When employees perceive CSR initiatives as
congruent with organisational mission, values, and objectives, they are more likely to perceive
those initiatives as legitimate and sincere.
For some employees the perceived genuineness of organisational efforts is a necessary
antecedent to engagement, suggesting that CSR initiatives should be relevant to the
organisation’s mission, values, and objectives. For example, one of the organisations instils in its
employees the importance of being responsible across all facets of business operations. Thus,
several of their CSR initiatives are designed to address industry or organisational shortcomings
such as water equality or animal welfare in wildlife tourism. As one of their employees suggests,
the organisation engages in CSR because of “[…] where we go and the places we visit. A lot of the
173
places aren’t well off as obviously we are here, so it’s nice to be able to put something back”
(Charlotte, disengaged employee).
Conversely, for one of the other organisations its charity raised criticism and concern from
employees. While based in tourism, the charity was largely focused on low-income families and
thus appeared to employees as being less clearly linked with the organisation’s culture and
values. According to Barry, who is disengaged, “[…] we have one main charity that we support,
and that we pledge to raise a certain amount of money for. And I know there are a lot of people
at work they don’t really have a passion for that charity. It is a charity I have never heard about
outside of my workplace before”.
In addition to organisational sincerity, employees perceive the centrality of interventions as
removing barriers to CSR. For those initiatives that are not consistent with organisational
values, the needs of the intervention may not supersede those of organisational interest. As
Beth, a CSR champion, suggests, “always you have the challenges of different priorities.
Eventually you have those decisions what’s better for the environment is not always means
better costs”. Consequently, similarly to the type of CSR intervention (see Section 6.2.),
employee judgements about intervention sincerity and centrality relate to the embeddedness of
corporate social responsibility. This is perhaps unsurprising due to embedded CSR’s relation to
organisational strategy and objectives, which are critical elements of perceived sincerity and
centrality. As a result, consideration of intervention fit, particularly in relation to centrality and
embeddedness, allows managers and their organisations to more clearly identify opportunities
and barriers to employee CSR engagement.
8.6. The Effect of CSR on EmployeesOrganisational CSR efforts affect employees in two key ways; employees identified CSR as
impacting their view of the organisation as well as their organisational pride. CSR was seen to
affect employees across the spectrum of engagement and thus it appears that employees are
influenced by organisational CSR efforts whether they engage in these activities or not.
Furthermore, the effect of CSR on employees can be both positive and negative, depending
where an employee sits on the spectrum of engagement. Consequently, by identifying the
various effects of CSR on employees, this research contributes to understanding of the impact
organisational sustainability efforts have on employees.
8.6.1. View of the OrganisationGraci and Dodds (2008) argue that one of the greatest benefits of adopting environmental
practises is the positive impact on employees. Nevertheless, employees themselves raised
questions about the impact of CSR. For some, they felt that organisational efforts to be
174
responsible had, if any, only a latent impact on employee engagement. When reflecting on the
engagement of co-workers, Brenda, a CSR champion, suggested, “I think people are aware that
we do try to be sustainable […] but I don’t think they necessarily absorb it and go ‘oh, that’s
good!’”. Similarly, Bart, an organisational champion, expressed doubt that employees are
mindful of CSR benefits, “whether they sort of stand there and think ‘gee! What a great company
[this] is’, I don’t know”.
Conversely, others suggested that employees are aware of and have expectations for corporate
responsibility. For some, employee expectations for pro-sustainable behaviour are industry
specific and stem from the capacity of tourism and hospitality organisations to negatively
impact economies, societies, and environments, for which they can be exposed to strong
criticism. Charlotte, for example, explained that she has expectations regarding her employer’s
behaviour simply because it is a hospitality and tourism organisation: “I think working here I
have [expectations], but in general I don’t know if you would. Say if you were going to another
company other than [this]… probably this being a [travel] company, people have more
expectation than say a law firm or something”. Bridget, who is a organisational champion, also
argues that the industry they’re in impacts the way employees see the organisation, suggesting
that:
Most tourism and hospitality businesses have some sort of corporate social responsibility. As
a [hotelier], or a tour operator, or as an airline, companies need to not only do things with
our product, but need to do it internally as well. How can you preach and say we’ve got a
fantastic product but the people that work here don’t actually do anything sustainable.
Others mention that though it may not have an overt or positive affect on engagement,
organisational CSR isn’t detrimental either. When asked how CSR participation impacts
employee views of the organisation, CSR champion Bridget suggested “I think sustainability’s
seen as something that everyone should do, so I don’t think it would ever put a negative effect
on somebody”. Pamela goes on to suggest that equally, not adopting pro-sustainable behaviour
change could have a negative impact: “For employees, when you’re looking for a company, you
know, if you’ve been in the news a lot like some companies about sweatshops or […] or you’re
dumping loads of pollution, you know, it doesn’t leave a good taste, does it? So it can’t hurt”. One
disengaged employee went on to suggest that CSR will only impact employees who have an
existing tendency towards pro-sustainable behaviour:
[It will impact] some people more than others, I would think. You know, if you’re that way
inclined, you’re that way inclined and there are a lot of people that like that…again that
same guy in IT he likes to do…likes to challenge himself but he’s young free and single. We’ve
175
got another lady in finance who likes to…she’s quite active so you can sort of couple it with
what you’re doing. […] Tie it into your lifestyle but if you’re not that way inclined you’re not
that way inclined and you need to…it’s that balance of allowing people to do their charity
work and those that don’t want to.
However, it is worth noting that in some instances, corporate responsibility efforts do appear to
negatively impact employees. For example, pressure to participate (see Section 7.4.) or the
policing behaviour of Champions (see Section 8.3.4.) can cause employees to draw negative
connotations between CSR and the organisation. Such is the impact of CSR on some employees
that within one organisation, an employee was identified as taking sick leave in order to avoid
corporate fundraising efforts: “I know some people feel the pressure. I know someone who
stays at home on that day every year, because they don’t want to have to [participate]! It is
quite extreme, yes”.
Furthermore, CSR can impact potential employees’ view of the organisation. Employees
increasingly expect organisations to be responsible with employees creating demand for CSR
within their organisations (McWilliams & Siegel, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of
the Firm Perspective, 2001). Indeed, within the literature, CSR is argued to play a growing role
in human resource management, particularly for Generation Y (D'Netto & Ahmed, 2012; Martin
& Tulgan, 2006). As Angelica, a disengaged employee, suggests:
Our expectations are quite high, because we make a big song and dance about it, externally
and internally, so we expect our company to act ethically and sustainably throughout all of
our operations. And I think that more and more just a basic sort of hygiene factor that you
would want your employer to be running a sustainable operation, I think probably for a
good decade or so now.
CSR thus has the potential to impact employees’ view of the organisation. Though debate
remains amongst employees regarding the extent of this impact, there is evidence to suggest
that employees have changing expectations regarding their employers’ responsibilities. With
CSR able to both positively and negatively influence employee views of the organisation, CSR
communication is made increasingly important as the effect of CSR on employees relies on the
CSR communication both within and external to the organisation.
8.6.2. Organisational PrideFor many, CSR is seen to increase employee pride in their organisation. Employee pride was
often demonstrated through social media communications. As Alma, who is engaged in her
organisation’s CSR, explains, “people felt good about the company […] you could see it in their
176
pledges that were coming in and on social media”. Aaron, who is also engaged, witnessed similar
reactions to CSR when his organisation posted a CSR success story online and employees
responded with comments about how proud they were to work for the company. Indeed,
people’s enthusiasm and pride for organisational CSR extends beyond social media with
employees sharing stories from work with friends and family: “my boyfriend could tell you
loads of our history although he’s never worked a day in this place!” (Anna, engaged employee).
“I am really proud of what we do”, says one engaged employee, April, “and I talk about it in my
outside life and especially when I see something going on, you know, like the Russia air crash
recently and I can say ‘oh, you know, we’ve donated to help that’”.
April was not the only employee to suggest that a sense of pride was derived when CSR efforts
were externally recognised: “I think we all share a sense of ownership and pride for when you
see the externalisation of what we do, so when we [donate funds]” (Austin, engaged employee).
Gond et al. (2007)suggests that CSR affects employees’ by framing perceptions of their
organisation’s external prestige; perceptions of organisational prestige can subsequently
reinforce incumbent employees’ pride in the organisation. This suggests that employee pride
stems from organisation reputation with CSR therefore correlated with organisational
identification. This is consistent with the literature with research by Houghton et al. (2009),
Jones (2010), Evans et al. (2011) and De Roeck and Delobbe (2012) highlighting the positive
relationship between CSR and organisational identification. Critically, 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 organisation that treats others well (Dutton et al., 2010). This
has important implications for organisational CSR and CSR communication with the potential to
drive employee pride through reputation and external recognition.
A sense of pride emerged across the spectrum of engagement with disengaged employees also
identifying pride as an outcome of organisational CSR. For example, one disengaged employee,
Asher suggests “it’s something extra to kind of feel proud about”. When asked if CSR
programmes change the way employees feel about the organisation, though disengaged,
Charlotte agreed, proposing, “it’s quite something to be proud of”.
Nevertheless, given that these employees are generally disengaged from CSR, this suggests that
while pride is an outcome of CSR, pride is not necessarily an antecedent to employee CSR
engagement. This conflicts with existing research such as that by Smith and Tyler (1997) and
Tyler and Blader (2000; 2001; 2002; 2003) in which they argue that organisational pride elicits
satisfaction with and commitment to the organisations and can subsequently be an important
source of employee cooperative behaviour. Others suggest that social outcomes such as pride
177
may be equally, if not more important in motivation and behaviour of individual employees that
material outcomes such as pay (Katzenbach, 2003; Thaler, 2000). However, while empirical
research has established pride as a driver of psychological attachment and motivation for
individual employees[ CITATIOn Tyl00 ], none have looked specifically at its relationship with
employee CSR engagement. It is therefore possible that if employees can be both proud but
disengaged, alternative barriers to CSR engagement may be more influential than employee
pride.
8.7. Disengaged EmployeesBoth the research and practise of CSR has largely treated the individual organisation as a ‘black
box’ (Howard-Grenville, 2006), failing to account for individual differences amongst employees
and the resulting variations in antecedents to CSR engagement or disengagement (Rodrigo &
Arenas, 2008). A key contribution of this research is therefore its recognition that employees
exist across a spectrum of engagement from highly engaged to highly disengaged. By analysing
employees at the individual level, this research identifies different drivers for different
employees depending where on the spectrum of engagement these individuals sit. The
differences identified here are illustrated in Figure 8.2 using the model for the spectrum of
engagement.
Stakeholder theory provides a valuable framework by which to examine employee
disengagement because it is underpinned by assumptions of diversity of interests between
stakeholder groups and thus is useful in understanding diverse stakeholder interest. However,
within stakeholder groups, stakeholders are often generalised and categorised based on the
roles that they play; however, stakeholder claims stem from a broad range of demographic,
cultural, political, and social affiliations which are not always easily reconciled within the typical
firm-generated economically oriented stakeholder roles. The alternative approach presented in
this thesis subsequently accommodates for heterogeneous priorities within a single stakeholder
group.
Across the spectrum of engagement, employees face unique opportunities and barriers to CSR
participation and engagement. Nevertheless, a lack of attention has been given to opportunities
and barriers to CSR engagement as they relate to those hard to reach employees who are
generally disconnected from organisational sustainability efforts. This section subsequently
addresses key antecedents for disengaged employees, specifically: organisational CSR policies
and practises, work-life balance, freedom of choice, and peer and organisational pressure.
Understanding antecedents to disengagement addresses gaps in knowledge identified in the
conceptual model developed in Section 4.7., specifically antecedents to employee CSR
178
disengagement. Beyond those listed above, additional opportunities and barriers to CSR
engagement for disengaged employees are identified; however, other employees, including
those that are engaged, also identified these antecedents. As such, this section concentrates
specifically on those factors that are unique to disengaged employees, with more general
antecedents to CSR engagement discussed in Sections 8.2-8.6.
8.7.1. Organisational CSR Policy and PracticeNotably, disengaged employees were challenged not by sustainability itself, but rather
organisational policies and practises surrounding pro-sustainable behaviour. A key barrier to
participation included criticisms of existing practises, which were disparaged by disengaged
employees as being insufficient and seemingly insincere. Coupled with a perceived lack of
opportunity to provide personal contributions to changing CSR or to introduce new initiatives,
disengaged employees were critical of corporate responsibility. However, these criticisms were
markedly directed towards CSR policies and practises, rather than the principles of corporate
responsibility. As a result, while disengagement often implies a lack of connection with the
principles of CSR, it is possible
that, at least for some, drivers
of disengagement stem from
frustration with practise
rather than principle. Indeed,
Glavas (2016) suggests that if
employees perceive
organisational CSR as being
symbolic rather than
substantive, it is then green
washing which in turn could
negatively influence their
perceptions of values fit
within the organisation, not
because the employee does
not hold sustainability values
but because they deem their
organisation not to. This has critical implications for organisations whose employees perceive
CSR to be symbolic rather than substantive, and was repeatedly highlighted as a barrier to
engagement for the disengaged (see also Section 7.2). Thus, this research contributes to
179
Current State of Engagement
Figure 8.2 Unique Antecedent to Engagement for Disengaged
Employees
Highly Engaged
Highly Disengaged
Highly EngagedHighly Disengaged
Current State of Engagement
Future State of Engagement
CSR policy and practiceCynicismPerceptions of CSR as symbolicWork-life balanceLack of discretionPressure
understanding of employee engagement and disengagement by questioning predating
assumptions regarding employee cynicism of sustainability principles.
For example, while their more engaged co-workers identified positive strides made by the
organisation in adopting pro-sustainable behaviour, disengaged employees often felt their
organisations were not doing enough: “We have a big meeting tomorrow in central London […]
it’s not going to be a carbon neutral event. There’s no suggestion of ways in which we could be
greener” (Alex, disengaged employee). Frustrated employees identified several unsustainable
practises at work, including the provision of wooden stir sticks rather than spoons, water
dispensers that fit only plastic cups, not reusable mugs, and unsustainable transportation to
corporate meetings and events. When a company’s practises are inconsistent with the image
they would like to have, Vos (2009) suggests that they are beginning to engage in green
washing. Though normally discussed in the context of external communication with customers,
green washing also affects employees internally. Green washing is shown to drive employee
cynicism, a key antecedent to employee CSR disengagement. Critically, whether employee
perceptions of inconsistent pro-sustainable behaviour are accurate or not, as research by Glavas
and Godwin (2013) demonstrates, employees’ perceptions of their companies CSR behaviours
are more important than organisational reality.
A number of employees identified feeling discouraged by sustainability being a peripheral
rather than core concern. As Alex, a disengaged employee, suggests, “it’s never front and centre.
I wouldn’t say it’s one of the main considerations or even one of the key things that has to be
ticked off”. Embedded CSR uses an organisation’s key competencies and integrates CSR into
strategy, routines, and operations whereas, in contrast, peripheral CSR focuses on activities that
are not integrated into organisational strategy, routines, and operations (Aguinis & Glavas,
Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: psychological foundations, 2013).
While both corporate volunteering and corporate fundraising are common forms of peripheral
CSR, Dawkins and Lewis (2003) argue that organisations cannot base their responsible
reputation on peripheral initiatives while ignoring the major impacts of their core business
operations. Employees identified a lack of embedded CSR as contributing to employee cynicism,
which impedes key antecedents of transparency and genuineness (see Section 8.2.1.).
Furthermore, as is identified in Section 6.4, additional barriers are presented by those
interventions that fall outside of the daily working life of the organisation.
8.7.2. Work-life BalanceWork-life balance was also seen to impede CSR engagement. Disengaged employees revealed
prioritising personal time and work-life balance, disengaged from CSR initiatives that were seen
to obstruct these. Consequently, while these employees often participated in pro-sustainable
180
behaviour outside of the workplace, they did not always choose to engage in citizenship-type
behaviours at work. This suggests that multiple identities may be triggered in the workplace,
potentially representing divergent role expectations. As Rhys explains, “I have family so my
commitments are very much… I do my hours and I go home, to put it politely”. When describing
his attitude towards CSR, he suggests, “I tend to keep my home life separate and if I’m going to
do something I will do it outside of [work] rather than…I don’t like mixing too much with home
and work”. Nevertheless, as work and home life become increasingly integrated (Khallash &
Kruse, 2012) achieving balance between the multiple commitments creates an on-going
challenge for employees and human resource professionals (Pradhan et al., 2016). However, it is
worth noting that there will always be those individuals who do not wish to bring work home or
bring home to work; “some people genuinely need to come in, do their job, and go home for
family reasons” (Cassandra, disengaged employee).
Indeed, while work-life balance is a powerful leverage point for promoting individual and
organisational effectiveness (Shankar & Bhatnagar, 2010), as evidenced from this research,
when employees feel that corporate responsibility impedes on work-life balance it can drive
disengagement. “For some people at 5.30 pm, that’s it you just want to go home. People just
need to work and you get some people like that”, suggests one disengaged employee, Charlotte.
Other employees suggested that not every employee’s lifestyle is conducive to CSR, emphasising
challenges of time, family balance, and responsibilities as caregivers. However, while the
majority of concerns raised by respondents centred on work-family balance, Shankar and
Bhatnagar (2010) stress the importance of acknowledging the restrictive focus of these terms
and their general disregard for single individuals and those without caring responsibilities.
8.7.3. Employee DiscretionEmployees also suggest that when you engage in sustainability outside of work, it’s a choice,
where as in the office it feels less discretionary: “I think at home it is a personal choice” (Aiden,
disengaged employee). Consequently, Cassandra, who is disengaged from CSR, argues
organisations must “explain that there’s a choice”. Autonomy and choice, which are the focus of
Section 8.4.3, are repeatedly identified as playing a critical role in employee CSR engagement.
This is particularly true if employees are offered limited freedom in choosing how to contribute
to corporate responsibility. For example, Christopher, who volunteers with people with
disabilities, explains how he chooses to participate in projects outside of work where he can be
more selective in how he invests his time, rather than engaging with CSR at work.
Within the literature, the provision of choice is repeatedly highlighted as a common and
effective vehicle through which managers can empower employees (Chua & Iyengar, 2006);
consequently, for employees who engage in responsible behaviour outside of work but fail to
181
engage in organisational CSR, integrating external volunteering commitments into those offered
as part of organisational initiatives provides an opportunity to facilitate greater CSR
engagement. Therefore, while organisations generally take a distinctly top-down approach in
the formulation and execution of CSR interventions, often mandating participation rather than
involving employees on their own terms (Bhattacharya et al., 2008), there is room for greater
autonomy and participation by employees.
Additionally, while disengaged employees may generally be more reluctant to engage in
organisational citizenship or extra-role behaviour, it is worth noting that OCB can be present at
three levels in the organisation, namely organisation, group, and individual (Bentein,
Stinglhamber, & Vandenberghe, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Subsequently, though commitment
to the organisation is a key mediating variable in employee CSR engagement, additional drivers
may be found at the group and individual level. In particular, the desire of disengaged
employees to engage in team building and socialisation has critical implications for the
development of group identity and subsequently, employee engagement. This is discussed in
more detail in Section 7.3.
8.7.4. PressureDisengaged employees also differed from their more engaged counterparts by identifying
pressure as a driver of disengagement, rather than engagement. Disengaged employees more
frequently discuss pressure in negative terms and differentiate between different types of
pressure, including financial and social pressure, as well as positive and negative peer and
organisational pressure:
I think there’s good and bad pressure. Everybody needs a bit of a chivvy, I think, everybody
does, at whatever stage, so I think it’s important to have that and to have it in a friendly,
non-pressurised form of chivvying. If it’s coming from the top of the business then I think
there’s – sometimes, yes, okay, there’s more gravitas but I think it’s more natural when it
comes from the staff themselves who are not senior management (Caroline, disengaged
employee)
Critically, pressure is one example that highlights that within the context of CSR, the concepts of
engagement and disengagement may not in fact be opposites. A lack of antecedents to
engagement is not necessarily the cause of disengagement, with at least some unique factors
driving employee disengagement. As illustrated above, while pressure can drive continued
engagement for some employees, for those who are less engaged in corporate social
responsibility, pressure is seen to drive disengagement. This research therefore contributes to
emerging evidence within the literature that suggests disengagement is not the counterpart of
182
engagement (Gonzalez-Roma, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006; Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Maslach et al., 2001). Presupposing that employee outlooks and opinions on CSR are
homogenous has caused a lack of distinction to be made between drivers to engagement and to
disengagement. Having studied individual differences in CSR engagement, this research
subsequently suggests that the engagement and disengagement are not opposites, identifying
unique antecedents such as pressure, which can drive both engagement and disengagement
depending on where an employee sits on the spectrum of engagement.
8.8. Space for the DisengagedEmployers are increasingly using organisational culture as a way of driving pro-sustainable
behaviour amongst employees, with arguments emerging that advocate hiring based on fit
between potential employees and organisational culture (Rivera, 2012). Strong sustainability
focused cultures are seen as enhancing employees’ adoption of pro-sustainable behaviour
(Galpin, Whittington, & Bell, Is your sustainability strategy sustainable? Creating a culture of
sustainability, 2015). Renwick et al. (2012) argue that creating and sustaining pro-sustainable
organisations requires hiring employees who are willing to engage in sustainability activities,
resulting in increasingly values focused criteria required of new hires. As such, organisations
may strive to create a cohesive and shared set of values by hiring those employees who have a
strong culture and value fit (Galpin, Whittington, & Bell, Is your sustainability strategy
sustainable? Creating a culture of sustainability, 2015). As Adam, who is engaged, reported, “it’s
one of those things that certainly features in recruitment because we are a very values driven
organisation and for me, it’s really, really important that we have people come on board who are
in line with those values”. Indeed, findings from the CSR recruiting literature are often
underpinned by signalling theories, suggesting that CSR signals to prospective employees the
values of the organisation and thus the potential for values congruence (Gully et al., 2013; Jones
et al., 2014a). Nevertheless, as evidenced by this research, even within organisations that boast
strong sustainability focused values and cultures there remain employees who are arguably a
poor person-organisation or value-organisation fit. These individuals are seen to display
alternative coping mechanisms and thus, this thesis contributes not only to the understanding
of employee CSR disengagement but also identifies alternative methods by which to engage
hard to reach employees who would otherwise be disengaged from organisational corporate
social responsibility.
Notably, employees who do share organisational values appear to have strong opinions about
those who do not. Courtney, for example, who is engaged, claims “being responsible, from my
point of view, is one of our key principles so I think if you’re not a little bit responsible and care
a little bit about it, then you are probably working for the wrong company”. She was not the only
183
engaged employee to question where disengaged employees fit within sustainable companies
and cultures. Austin, who is engaged in organisational CSR, suggested “we hire people who
share our values and people who stay with [the company] share those values because I think
those that don’t end up figuring out this isn’t the right place for them”. This is consistent with
findings from the literature where authors such as Rothbard (2015) argue, “when people don’t
fit the organisation, they don’t feel comfortable. They often don’t get selected, and if they do,
they don’t enjoy their experience and they leave”. Bruhn (2008) contends that the tension of
value dissonance causes individuals to either change their values and opinions or leave the
institution in an effort to avoid dissonance. Nevertheless, as this research shows, employees can
be found within organisations with which they do not share values and that may be a poor
cultural fit. Indeed, many employees find that they have opinions that do not fit institutional
norms or fit with the opinions of those who monitor and enforce them (Bruhn, 2008). As Rhys
says, “it’s not unusual to be disengaged”. While quitting is a likely outcome for many employees,
this research identifies that when CSR value dissonance occurs, instead of quitting employees
may develop alternative coping mechanisms. For example, employees identified taking time off
work to avoid uncomfortable situations, retaliating such as by printing thousands of sheets of
paper, or were driven to engage by other values, such as teambuilding and socialisation, rather
than sustainability.
While the literature has focused on achieving value congruence in order to develop ‘strong’
organisational cultures, emerging research questions this lack of diversity and the desirability of
having only employees who share a cohesive set of values. Within the extant literature, diversity
is shown by some researchers to increase productivity, creativity, and quality (Earley &
Mosakowski, 2000; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Polzer, Milton, & Swann, 2002; van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007). Further, Kruse (2012) questions if it is even a feasible strategy to hire only
those employees who share organisational values. Furthermore, as Bao et al. (2012) suggest, it
may not be fully possible to understand employee values during the screening process,
hindering the validity of staffing as a means of achieving value congruence. In addition, given
that key aspects of CSR centre on diversity and inclusion, excluding employees with different
values runs contrary to the concept’s ideals. Indeed, CSR is presented as a tool for diversity
management (Vermaut & Zanoni, 2014) and yet, some employees are left feeling isolated from
organisational culture. Consequently, in their effort to achieve employee-company fit and value
cohesion, some organisations face inadvertent hypocrisy. By seeking to embed corporate
responsibility within the organisation, organisations may simultaneously isolate those
employees who do not share corporate values. This is consistent with findings from Chapter 7
which demonstrate the role of optimal distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991; 1993) in the development
184
of employee identity through sub, rather than subordinate, groups. This subsequently has key
implications for human resources, particularly in relation to hiring, communication, and CSR
engagement strategies.
It is therefore problematic that though employee branding at one organisation is focused on
embracing individual identities to “be yourself” (Amber, engaged employee), disengaged
employees found little room for individualism. However, these individuals desired room to be
themselves, particularly when it came to the choice to disengage: “I think people should be
encouraged to say ‘I’m just not interested’ or ‘it doesn’t appeal to me’ and then not for that to be
challenged but for them to have the opportunity to express why they are not interested and for
that to be accepted” (Caroline, disengaged employee). Ultimately suggests Austin, who is
engaged in CSR, “it is about thinking more thoughtfully about how you bring these things to life”.
According to Van Buren and Greenwood (2008), one of the essential ethical issues in the
employment relationship is the loss of employee voice, that is, the ability of employees to raise
concerns and to negotiate terms of exchange with their employer. However, in his work on
organisational learning, Argyris (1977) noted that there are often powerful norms and routines
within organisations that deter employees from speaking up. Other scholars note that
organisations are often intolerant of criticism and that employees may subsequently withhold
information in order to not “rock the boat” or create conflict (Burke R. , Encouraging employee
voice is vital to leadership success, 2014; Cullinane & Donaghey, 2014; Edmondson, 2003).
Perhaps it is then less surprising that employees report one-way communication when it comes
to corporate social responsibility. Interestingly, research by Deakin and Wittaker (2007)
suggests that the use of CSR to promote employee voice in the workplace appears to be less
advanced in the UK than in other countries, such as Australia. This may be because of a
perception of British managers that CSR is about the company’s relationships with external
stakeholders, rather than its own internal organisation (ibid). Nevertheless, if organisations
seek to engage hard to reach employees in corporate responsibility efforts, two-way
communication channels must be established, encouraging employees to discuss organisational
sustainability.
Furthermore, although organisations are increasingly concerned with employee engagement,
the topic of disengagement is seldom explored with little, if any, dialogue encouraged between
disengaged employees and their organisations: “if nobody’s coming, didn’t turn up, it wouldn’t
be questioned why, I’m not after asking why people aren’t attending” (April, engaged
employee). For some organisations this is because engagement levels have not been so low as to
raise concern. When asked if there are conversations with co-workers who do not participate,
185
Annabelle, who engages in organisational CSR, reports “not really, no. I think our team is quite
engaged”. Bart, who is a CSR champion, describes a similar experience, explaining, “it’d be
interesting to see the people that didn’t do it, why not. Because if it had failed and we’d only got
like, you know, three people turned up or something, then we might have had to do a bit more
research into why. But because we kind of had decent numbers, it was fine”. However, even if
CSR policies and practises impact engagement, conversations about disengagement are avoided.
For example, an engaged employee, Aurora, describes a situation where a co-worker stayed at
home because they did not want to participate in a CSR intervention, explaining “we just had a
little laugh about it but I don’t feel like it’s my place to say ‘oh, why aren’t you getting
involved?’”.
Others suggest they don’t ask because they would only get excuses: “We’d just have to ask and
say give me an honest answer because they might be thinking ‘I just don’t care’ but I can’t say
that so they say ‘oh, I don’t have a car, x, y and z’ (Brenda, CSR champion). Or, as Cody suggests,
“you never really get a proper feel because […] the people that don’t get involved just sneak off”.
While social desirability bias is a legitimate concern, it is difficult to address issues of
disengagement if organisations and CSR leaders do not understand those factors driving their
less engaged co-workers. Furthermore, by engaging these individuals in dialogue surrounding
corporate responsibility, employees have the opportunity to contribute to organisational
decision making and error-correction.
Open dialogue and recognition of employee voice can play a significant role in encouraging
employee loyalty and commitment (Deakin & Whittaker, 2007). As identified in the literature,
employee voice is also shown to contribute to communities and societies (Milliken, Schipani,
Bishara, & Prado, 2015) and thus, linked to corporate social responsibility. Conversely,
employees’ reluctance to speak up has the potential to damage employee trust and morale (Beer
& Eisenstat, 2000; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Within the literature, leadership is also identified
as playing a critical role in encouraging employee voice (Detert & Burris, 2007; Liu, Liston-
Heyes, & Wai-Wai, 2010). In particular, transformational leadership is recognised as
engendering employee voice (Liu, Liston-Heyes, & Wai-Wai, 2010). As Deci and Ryan (1987)
suggest, in order to foster a supportive work environment, management must display concern
for employees’ needs and feelings, provide feedback, and encourage employees to voice their
concerns. While there is some discussion of CSR within the case study organisations, it is critical
that disengaged employees are given a greater opportunity to voice opinions and concerns. In
terms of employee voice, within the organisations, it is typically CSR champions who voice CSR
thoughts and concerns. However, as is illustrated in Section 8.3.4., these individuals do not
always understand the views of their disengaged co-workers. It therefore becomes critical that
186
employees across the spectrum of engagement are provided the opportunity to engage in CSR
discussion and evaluation.
8.9. ConclusionThis chapter identifies factors driving individual employees’ decision to engage in corporate
social responsibility, as well as critically analysing those factors that prevent employee
engagement. Drivers and impediments to engagement are found at both the personal and
activity level. Employees report that levels of engagement are affected by attributions of
organisational CSR, feeling negatively about symbolic rather than substantive CSR efforts.
Consequently, at the personal level, engagement is driven by employee CSR attributions and the
perceived benefits of participation.
At the activity level, CSR engagement is influenced by aspects of intervention design, including:
incentives; interest and relevance; autonomy and choice; and ease and practicality of
participation. Research findings indicate that examining the characteristics and features of CSR
interventions provides a viable approach for predicting employee CSR engagement, with
intervention design able to trigger salient aspects of employees’ social identity. Critically, this
research highlights discrepancies in drivers to engage depending on where an employee sits on
the spectrum of engagement. While engaged employees may seek opportunities for CV building
and professional development, those who are disengaged are likely drawn to CSR interventions
that support teambuilding and socialisation. This emphasises the potential for diversity within a
stakeholder group and suggests that though employees may, at least to some degree, share a
common interest in the organisation that elsewhere employee values and interests diverge.
Furthermore, this chapter demonstrates that while engaged employees are invested in the
outcome of projects, it may be that disengaged employees are more invested in the process.
Specifically, employees who are otherwise disengaged are driven to engage when interested in
projects. Indeed, even if opposed to the charity, they may participate if interested in the
intervention itself. When it comes to the type of intervention, disengaged employees seek out
interventions that have a more engaging process, such as a day out of the office rather than
fundraising, which is outcome centric.
187
Chapter 9: Conclusions
9.1. IntroductionThis final chapter serves to bring together the findings of this research study. This is achieved
by focusing on the contributions this research has provided and the implications this research
has for future practise and study. The chapter begins by summarising findings for the research
question and objectives. This is followed by the theoretical and practical contributions of this
work. The chapter concludes by considering limitations of the current study and providing
recommendations for future research.
9.2. Answers to the Research Question and ObjectivesThe aim of this research was to explore, from an employee perspective, engagement with
organisational CSR in the context of hospitality and tourism multinationals and to identify
impediments that may impair such engagement. Three case study organisations were
subsequently chosen based on their recognised efforts towards corporate social responsibility.
In order to explore employee CSR engagement and disengagement, in-depth interviews were
selected as the most appropriate method, enabling the researcher to gain insights into those
factors which influence individual employees’ decisions to engage in corporate social
responsibility, as well as to critically analyse those factors which drive some employees to be
disengaged from organisational CSR.
The forms of corporate responsibility discussed in this thesis largely referred to corporate
fundraising and corporate volunteering, as these activities were the main focus of employee
responses. As previously noted, employee understanding of CSR limited to these two, often
peripheral, activities raises several questions surrounding CSR communication and employee
understanding and engagement with corporate responsibility and may be reflective of a lack of
greater CSR awareness and engagement. However, in spite of limited employee knowledge of
the formal elements of the company’s CSR, it was noted during interviews that employees
ranged from those who were enthusiastic supporters of CSR to others who had little or no
interest in CSR activities.
Using identity theory, this thesis expands current theoretical positions on the construct of
employees as a stakeholder group and the relationship between stakeholder interests and the
decision making of organisational leaders in relation to corporate responsibility. It identifies
from the individual level unique opportunities and barriers to employee CSR engagement, as
188
well as those overarching organisational factors that influence employees decisions to engage in
responsible behaviour in the workplace.
Drivers for employee CSR engagement were identified at the organisational level, activity level,
and individual level. Organisational level drivers include effective organisational
communication about CSR interventions, which was seen to affect employee awareness, line of
sight, transparency, and role ambiguity; management support, including the organization’s own
participation; and leadership for CSR, including perceptions of passion and genuineness. The
ability of CSR activities to generate employee participation is particularly influenced by
intervention type and whether the choice in intervention is consistent with organisational
culture. Individual level drivers include perceptions of CSR as substantive; trust; individual
interests; opportunities to develop social capital; autonomy and choice; and a lack of barriers
resulting in ease and practicality of participation.
However, in asking in which context employees engage in CSR interventions in multinational
tourism and hospitality organisations, the aim of this thesis, it became increasingly clear that
engagement is fluid and often context dependent. As a result, employees were seen to engage in
CSR interventions, despite being disengaged from organisational CSR (e.g. an employee that
sung for charity fundraisers because he enjoyed singing, despite disliking corporate
fundraising). Similarly, engaged employees participated in some but not necessarily all CSR
interventions. This reflects the mobile and context dependent nature of engagement and further
contributes to understanding that engagement falls across a spectrum with a number of factors
influencing individual employees willingness to engage in corporate social responsibility.
In order to understand the specific contextual factors driving engagement, or disengagement,
the research sought to address the following objectives:
1. Critique managerial practises used to engage employees in CSR interventions
In order to critique managerial practises, this research sought employee perspectives on
managerial approaches used to drive employee CSR engagement. Research revealed four areas
within managerial control that significantly impacted employee CSR engagement, specifically:
intervention type and design, communication, CSR leadership, and the development of
sustainability focused cultures.
For the organisations involved in this research, CSR largely focused on fundraising,
volunteering, or a combination of the two. The type of intervention pursued by organisations
was seen to impact employee engagement. Corporate volunteering affected employee CSR
189
attributions, perceived benefits, and level of autonomy and choice. Corporate volunteering that
involved paid time out of the office was perceived by employees as indicative of organisational
support for CSR and contributed to feelings of trust. Conversely, corporate fundraising created
pressure, which caused disengaged employees to feel negatively towards co-workers and the
organisation. Furthermore, employees recognised fewer benefits to participation and indeed, in
some cases, philanthropy was actually seen to foster disengagement. With both fundraising and
volunteering initiatives, some organisations offered greater diversity in project type with
initiatives that were clearly linked to CSR, such as recycling, and those that were less clearly
linked, including conga lines, salsa dancing, and football matches. This occasionally resulted in
role ambiguity with employees questioning how they were making a difference. If role
ambiguity was high enough, employees simply disengaged because it was easier.
While employee involvement in the design and selection of interventions was generally limited,
opportunities for participation were provided through voluntary roles on green teams or as CSR
champions, through the voting or submission of ideas, and for some, the autonomy within teams
to select which charities to donate time or money to. Nevertheless, employees expressed desire
for greater autonomy and choice. Employees also held strong views regarding incentives for
corporate social responsibility. Conflicting existing literature on rewarded and recognition
schemes, employees and management repeatedly reported that CSR should not be incentivised.
Nevertheless, incentives and incentive schemes were visible in all three organisations and upon
further investigation, were enjoyed by many employees. In part, this confusion may be
attributed to a lack of clear definition about what constitutes an incentive, both tangible and
intangible. Furthermore, reward and incentive schemes were not necessarily labelled as such,
and some schemes, such as internal recognition systems, were not used exclusively to
encourage CSR participation. Nevertheless, being clear about the role and importance of
incentives in CSR engagement is critical as it holds key implications for CSR leadership. If
incentives are not an antecedent for employee engagement, transactional leadership, which
achieves compliance through reward and punishment, may be significantly less effective in
achieving CSR engagement.
Communication played a central role in the dissemination and adoption of corporate social
responsibility with all three companies aiming to promote CSR and drive awareness of existing
initiatives. Management frequently used mainstream communication channels to disseminate
CSR communication, such as email or intranet; however, employees remained challenged by
issues of awareness and understanding. Some projects had greater awareness and publicity
than others, with flagship projects often the focus of CSR communication. It subsequently
became clear that not all projects were communicated equally. As a result, projects were subject
190
to varying levels of engagement from employees, which emphasised the spectrum of
engagement by which employee expectations, views, and attitudes towards CSR are not
homogenous.
One organisation sought to connect with a diverse audience by building emotional connections
through storytelling. It was an unofficial KPO of this company to make people cry as it indicated
an emotional engagement. The ability of storytelling to drive emotional engagement is
consistent with the literature, which suggests that employees interpret narration in line with
their own experiences, allowing personalised cognition about problems, solutions, and
explanations (Denning, 2005). However, while storytelling was largely effective, in general CSR
communication failed to impact employees to the extent that it should. Organisations
recognised communication shortcomings; nevertheless, little was done to monitor or measure
CSR communication.
Organisations also pursued the dissemination of CSR through leadership. Leadership came from
all across the organisations but was most frequently formalised through CSR teams and CSR
champion networks. The positioning of the CSR team within the organisation was seen to
critically impact employee understanding and perceptions of corporate responsibility. In part
this is because the positioning of the CSR team is linked to CSR communication and
consequently, depending on where the team was located, particular aspects of CSR were
emphasised. For example, for a team positioned within Business, Reputation, and
Responsibility, CSR was frequently associated with image and brand. Conversely, an
autonomous team that was independent of other departments caused employees to question
levels of embeddedness and the prioritisation of CSR by their organisation.
Each organisation took its own approach to using CSR champions to disseminate responsible
behaviour, including a UK champion network deployed abroad; head office champions split
between environmental and charity champion networks; and an internal network that
addresses all aspects of CSR. Differences also emerged in terms of budget allocations for
champion networks. The smallest organisation was the only one to formally allocate funds to its
CSR champions while the others were reliant on out of pocket spending or petty cash.
Consequently, at the organisational level, firm size and provision of resources were seen to
influence CSR leadership and design.
Lastly, CSR was strategically disseminated through the cultivation and promotion of
sustainability focused cultures. Organisations sought to drive corporate social responsibility
through person-organisation fit, value alignment, and organisational identification. To do so,
CSR featured in recruitment and training and thus for much of the organisation, there was a
191
strong sense of person-organisation fit and shared values. However, for disengaged and hard to
reach employees, overwhelming sustainability focused cultures resulted in feelings of isolation.
As a result, findings relating to organisational culture as a driver for engagement were not
consistent with the literature. Extant literature suggests that employees who don’t fit into
organisational cultures, values, and norms are uncomfortable in the workplace and
subsequently leave (see for example, Bruhn, 2008; Rothbard, 2015). However, as evidenced by
this research, individuals exist within organisations despite not identifying with the
organisation. Many of these individuals display alternative coping mechanisms including taking
time off work to avoid uncomfortable situations, retaliating against sustainability initiatives, or
engaging as a result of other values, such as teambuilding and socialisation, rather than CSR
policy and practice.
2. Identify factors influencing employees’ decisions to engage in CSR interventions
During interviews with both engaged and disengaged employees, respondents were asked a
range of questions regarding their experience with corporate social responsibility. Interviews
benefited from being both backwards looking, evaluating existing interventions, as well as
forwards looking by asking employees what they would like to see moving forward. Critically,
the research findings for both the second and third objectives highlighted key differences in
antecedents to engagement for employees across the spectrum.
Employees who were more actively engaged in corporate social responsibility repeatedly
identified engaging in CSR with no desire for personal benefit. There were suggestions that pure
altruism, when driver are driven only by the desire to help others without benefit to self, should
be the only motive for engagement. Nevertheless, when asked “what might drive other
employees”, engaged employees frequently identified CV building and skill development as
benefits of CSR engagement. The tendency of employees to discuss CV building as a benefit to
CSR for others but not for themselves may be attributed to social desirability bias in which
employees perceive non-altruistic drivers for CSR as being less favourable.
Engaged employees also recognised fewer barriers to engagement and repeatedly suggested
that due to organisational support for CSR, there was no reason for employees to disengage. As
a result, it was often difficult for these individuals to understand their less engaged co-workers,
with the relationship between the engaged and disengaged characterised by feelings of
confusion and frustration. Highly engaged individuals often had an existing interest in pro-
sustainable behaviour with many having studied sustainability related topics and having
worked, or desired to work, in sustainability focused roles. Due to value alignment, corporate
192
social responsibility therefore provided these individuals with more opportunities to express
their whole selves in the workplace.
Conversely, disengaged employees sought to develop social capital more so than professional
skills. Teambuilding created feelings of connectedness that disengaged employees did not
otherwise derive from shared organisational identification. Disengaged employees suggested
that benefits of teambuilding and socialisation were sufficient to drive engagement, even if
disinterested in CSR. Further, employees who were generally disengaged were driven to
participate in those projects that were of personal interest. Employees were more likely to
engage in CSR if they had the autonomy and choice to participate in and advocate for CSR due to
personal interest. This is consistent with self-determination theory by which individuals
perceive their social contexts as providing varying degrees of autonomy, which subsequently
dictates the extent to which they view their behaviour as being self-determined (Rupp, et al.,
2013a). Furthermore, self-determined CSR engagement reveals distinct processes by which
lower-level employees engage in corporate social responsibility; findings suggest that whereas
board and senior managers emphasise the business case for CSR, elsewhere in the organisation
employees prioritise CSR interventions with which they have a personal connection in order to
gain social capital, break up the monotony of the working day, and achieve altruistic outcomes.
Therefore, similarly to Rupp et al. (2011), this research argues for the usefulness of considering
the CSR-related relative autonomy of organisational contexts and the extent to which
individuals are provided autonomy in participating in, advocating for, and implementing CSR-
related initiatives.
Employee preferences also had consequences for the type of intervention engaged in.
Specifically, corporate volunteering, rather than corporate fundraising, provided opportunities
to build social capital and pursue projects of personal interest. Critically, organisational
willingness to pay employee wages while working on CSR outside of the office was perceived as
being indicative of true organisation supported for corporate responsibility. Employee trust that
organisational motives for CSR are genuine links to employee CSR attributions, another key
antecedent to engagement. Findings also suggested that when employees perceived CSR as
substantive, rather than symbolic, it confers greater employee CSR engagement. This was linked
to key drivers of honesty and trust; CSR programmemes that appeared to be driven by public
relations or cost cutting were equated with green washing and were subsequently the cause of
employee cynicism towards CSR. Transparency therefore plays an increasingly important role
in CSR engagement for hard to reach employees. This is in line with existing literature that
similarly identifies stakeholder demand for CSR transparency (Dawkins & Lewis, 2003).
193
Regardless of where they were situated along the spectrum of engagement, employees
consistently identified leadership as playing an important role in CSR engagement. The
effectiveness of CSR leadership was influence both by leader attributes and type. In particular,
employees were driven to engage by leaders who demonstrated genuineness and passion, as
this suggested a sincere belief in corporate social responsibility. At the board level, employees
desired visible participation as it was considered indicative of organisational support for CSR.
This is consistent with social exchange theory, which suggests that if mutual benefits are
identified within interactions with a person or group, individuals develop positive feelings of
trust and obligation towards the other party (Blau, 1964). Conversely, when interactions are
seen as one-sided, distance between the two parties emerges with individual’s subsequently
limiting investments to minimise risk (Rupp & Mallory, 2015). Consequently, by matching
words with deeds, leaders showcase their CSR actions as role models, proving their belief in the
value of such actions and advocating them to employees (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014).
However, while senior leadership participation is important, it was middle management who
was considered particularly influential in employee CSR engagement. Due to their proximity and
direct relationship with employees, middle managers were able to create line of sight by
articulating the ways in which employee participation contributed to organisational CSR
objectives. Notably, line of sight is related to strategic objectives, rather than value systems
(Boswell, 2006). Therefore because it focuses on employee alignment with organisational
strategy rather than culture, for employees who do not share organisational culture or value
systems line of sight subsequently provides an alternative means for engagement. Furthermore,
having an intimate understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of their teams,
managers are well positioned to connect employees to CSR strategy. Middle managers therefore
become key interpreters of how the sustainability efforts of the organisation link to the wider
systems in which the organisation sits.
3. Critically analyse factors preventing employees from engaging in CSR interventions
Employees reported a number of impediments that may impair CSR engagement. Whereas the
literature generally suggests that employees respond positively to CSR, this research suggests
that individual, project, and organisational level factors can place boundary conditions on these
effects. Critically, the analysis of factors driving and preventing employee CSR engagement
highlighted that engagement and disengagement may not be opposing constructs. The absence
of drivers for engagement did not necessarily result in disengagement, indicating that
disengagement may not be the opposite of engagement. This highlights the complexities of
194
behaviour change as well as the varying sensitivity to impediments to engagement depending
on where an employee sits along the spectrum.
Pressure is one example that suggests that, at least within the context of employee CSR
engagement, the concepts of engagement and disengagement may not be opposites. Pressure is
identified as both a driver and barrier to engagement, depending on where an employee sits
along the spectrum of engagement. Engaged employees identified pressure as a driver for
engagement, whereas disengaged employees were driven to disengage by financial, social, and
organisational pressure. The absence of pressure therefore causes some employees to engage
and others to disengage, demonstrating that rather than engagement and disengagement being
opposing constructs, engagement instead exists along a spectrum and is characterised by the
complexities of individuality.
It is also worth noting that disengaged employees were challenged not by sustainability itself,
but rather organisational policies and practises surrounding pro-sustainable behaviour. A key
barrier to participation included criticisms of existing practises, which were disparaged by
disengaged employees as being insufficient and seemingly insincere. Disengaged employees
were critical of corporate responsibility with these criticism markedly directed towards CSR
policies and practises, rather than the principles of corporate responsibility. As a result, while
disengagement often implies a lack of connection with the principles of CSR, it is possible that,
at least for some, drivers of disengagement stem from frustration with practise rather than
principle.
Cynicism over organisational CSR practises is linked to employee attributions of organisational
CSR. Disengaged employees were particularly sensitive to CSR efforts that appeared symbolic,
rather than substantive. These employees expressed concern that pro-sustainable behaviour
was a peripheral rather than core concern, which contributed to employee cynicism. Notably, as
established by Glavas and Goodwin (2013), employee perceptions can be more powerful than
reality.
Disengaged employees were also seen to prioritise work-life balance. Preference was given to
personal time and work life balance and, as a result, these individuals were less willing to
engage out of hours. While many disengaged employees participated in pro-sustainable
behaviour in their home lives, these actions did not translate into the workplace. In part,
employees attributed this to a lack of choice over when and how to engage at work. Employees
reported enjoying freedom and choice when engaging in philanthropy outside of the workplace.
This links to autonomy and choice, a key driver for engagement, and suggests that the greater
195
freedom of choice may encourage disengaged employees to bring responsible behaviour from
their home life into their working life.
Autonomy and choice, or lack thereof, is also relevant to employee interest in projects. While
engaged employees were willing to participate in a range of projects, even if not necessarily of
interest to them, disengaged employees were much more sensitive to level of interest. Employee
desire for projects that held a personal interest is perhaps unsurprising given that while
engaged employees may be driven by pure altruism, employees who do not share this
conviction may subsequently be more reliant on congruence between activities and personal
interests. Furthermore, beyond personal interest, disengaged employees also felt strongly that
CSR interventions should align with organisational culture. When employees perceive CSR
initiatives as congruent with organisational mission, values, and objectives, they are more likely
to perceive those initiatives as legitimate and thus sincere. Interventions lacking in centrality
therefore caused employees to question organisational motives and sincerity.
While identified as a driver for engagement, leadership can also be seen to foster
disengagement. Notably, while the extant literature suggests that CSR champions are
instrumental in CSR change and enactment (Blackburn, 2007; Robtertson & Barling, 2013), this
research suggests that greater analysis of opportunities and barriers for CSR champions to
support employee CSR engagement is necessary. In particular, it recognises that CSR champions
are challenged by a lack of understanding of their less engaged co-worker and a lack of power to
leverage necessary changes. Because these individuals are often lacking sufficient positional
authority to affect change, CSR champions can become ‘green police’ instead. Policing behaviour
can cause resentment and frustration between co-workers and can contribute to
disengagement.
Leadership at other levels can drive employee disengagement through a lack of visible support.
Employees reported a lack of senior management participation as causing confusion over
organisational values and why their organisation asks them to engage in CSR. Lack of senior
management support is particularly problematic if these individuals are imbedded in key
adoption policy and practices. Due to their ability to establish organisational priorities, both
senior management and middle management can therefore act as gatekeepers to CSR
engagement.
Lastly, communication plays a critical role in driving both engagement and disengagement. The
multiplicity of employee awareness and understanding of CSR creates challenges for
organisations. In particular, role ambiguity and missing line of sight can drive employee
disengagement. As a result, employees who lack awareness and understanding of CSR
196
interventions and how to contribute to these interventions subsequently disengage. Disengaged
employees were also challenged by issues of over communication, faced with an abundance of
CSR messages which were not always perceived as relevant or useful. Within this over
communication, challenges of ineffective communication arose; employees desired greater
levels of transparency, which contributes to improved trust and reduced cynicism.
4. Identify ways to engage those employees who are otherwise not engaged in CSR practises
The fourth research objective set out to develop recommendations for organisations to engage
employees in corporate social responsibility. Recommendations focus on the spectrum for
engagement and the need for individuality in CSR engagement. The role of participative
management, tailored CSR communication, embedded CSR, linkages between CSR and HR, the
monitoring of communication, and engagement at the organisational, group, and individual level
are discussed in turn.
Beyond voluntary roles in champion networks and green teams or by submitting and voting on
sustainability ideas, employee participation in the development of CSR policy and practise
remains minimal. Nevertheless, employee participation is related to a number of key drivers to
engagement including: understanding and awareness; interest and relevance of projects;
practicality of projects; and autonomy and choice. Indeed, employees themselves express
interest in playing a more active role in CSR development and dissemination. Participative
management, which encourages the involvement of stakeholders at all levels of an organisation
in the analysis of problems, development of strategies, and implementation of solutions, is
subsequently presented as a key tool by which to address employee CSR engagement. At its
core, corporate social responsibility is about people and thus stakeholder engagement and
communication are critical elements of its success. Participative management of CSR therefore
presents an opportunity by which to address role ambiguity, foster trust and transparency, and
improve communication.
There is also an argument for embedding corporate responsibility messages into more
mainstream communications and for providing increasingly tailored CSR communication.
Dawkins (2005) argues that since many audiences are not proactively looking for information
on CSR, stand-alone CSR communication appeals only to some engaged audiences. Indeed, this
is likely the cause of disengaged employees reporting issues of over-communication.
Nevertheless, the diverse information requirements of different stakeholder groups present
organisations with unique communication challenges. Reflecting the complexities of
encouraging greater engagement, organisations may need to convert the overall message of the
company into actionable messages that employees can understand and act upon. Effective CSR
197
communication therefore requires tailored messages for different stakeholder groups that may
contribute to minimising issues of over-communication and improving employee line of sight.
Existing CSR leadership networks, including CSR champions, may be well placed to disseminate
such information.
In addition to embedding CSR messages into mainstream communication, CSR must also be
embedded into mainstream business practises. Analysis of exiting managerial practises
highlights the persistent perception of CSR initiatives as separate from existing organisational
objectives, culture, and values. With CSR frequently treated as an add-on, there is increasingly
an argument for amending organisational norms to further embedding CSR into everyday
organisational functions. Existing CSR interventions of corporate fundraising and corporate
volunteering are examples of external and peripheral CSR; however, by adopting internally
embedded CSR and incorporating CSR into the daily working life of the organisation,
organisations have a third avenue by which to encourage employee engagement. Embedding
corporate responsibility into mainstream business practises of the organisation can remove a
number of barriers to engagement, including challenges of time and practicality, as well as
reducing employee cynicism over CSR being a peripheral rather than core organisational
concern. For example, embedded CSR initiatives such as providing locally and sustainably
sourced food in the office cafeteria, presents an opportunity to engage without demanding
significant changes in employees’ daily working life. This has key implications for the spectrum
of engagement as different employees engage in different types of CSR in different contexts.
Some employees will disengage from some projects at some times and thus, embedding
corporate responsibility in the daily working life of the organisation provides a greater number
of opportunities to engage. By providing employees with the autonomy to engage in a wide
range of projects, employees can be mobilised along the spectrum of engagement. Coupled with
choice editing, embedding CSR provides an opportunity to reach otherwise hard to reach
employees and engage them in corporate responsibility.
All of the above have key implications for human resource development and management. At its
most basic level, linking CSR with HRD can help employees recognise the benefits of corporate
social responsibility through training, education, and development. This research also suggests
that with employees desiring to engage in altruistic behaviour but also to have organisation
support them in these endeavours, that there is a growing place for altruism to be included as
part of professional development. The link between corporate supported volunteering and skill
development is long established, with research showing that volunteering can contribute to the
development of valuable business skills, such as employee leadership (Booth, et al., 2009) and
yet, CSR engagement is rarely formalised. However, encouraging altruistic behaviours within
198
the working life of employees can help to progress an organisations sustainability agenda by
making clear to employees what is expected of them. Human resources also have a role to play
in terms of value fit and feelings of discomfort and isolation in the workplace. Findings indicate
that even within cohesive organisational cultures, there is a need for individuality. Employees
should therefore be provided with opportunities to both engaged and disengage as well as be
provided with the means by which to bring more of their whole selves to work. This relates to
general sustainability and sustainable practice, which, while frequently focused on external
stakeholders, also includes the wellbeing of those internal to an organisation. Given that
diversity and inclusion form a central aspect of corporate social responsibility, supporting
employee individuality can align corporate initiatives with the concept’s ideals.
Communication, which is currently left unchecked, should be monitored and evaluated for
effectiveness. While employees are on occasion presented with surveys about engagement,
there is no follow up as to what drives disengagement, presenting a rather one-dimensional
understanding of employee CSR engagement. Furthermore, employee voice remains a key issue
in the employment relationship with employees often lacking opportunities to raise concerns
with their employer. By engaging employees in two-way dialogue provides an opportunity to
contribute to organisational decision making and error-correction, which can play a significant
role in encouraging employee loyalty and commitment (Deakin & Whittaker, 2007).
Nevertheless, as evidenced by Deakin and Wittaker (2007), the use of CSR to promote employee
voice in the workplace is less advanced in the UK than in other countries, such as Australia. This
may be because of a perception of British managers that CSR is about the company’s
relationships with external stakeholders, rather than its own internal organisation. However, if
organisations seek to engage hard to reach employees in corporate responsibility efforts, two-
way communication channels must be established, encouraging employees to discuss
organisational sustainability.
Critically, this research also highlights that employee engagement can be driven at different
levels. It is established within the literature that organisational commitment behaviour occurs
at three levels in the organisation: organisation, group, and individual level (Bentein, et al.,
2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Subsequently, though commitment to the organisation is a key
mediating variable in employee CSR engagement, additional drivers may be found at the group
and individual level. Having explored employee CSR engagement through a multi-level and
person centric perspective, this research suggests that there are alternative ways to engage
employees across the spectrum of engagement. For example, while most employees act
consistently with organisational identity (Corbett et al., 2015), for those employees who do not
share organisational values, this may result in tension instead. However, while these individuals
199
may lack connectedness to the organisation, connectedness to colleagues is also seen to drive
employee engagement (Hammond, 2011; Zigarmi et al., 2009), which in turn may translate into
co-operative and citizenship-type behaviours. Alternatively, for employees who do not share
organisational culture or value systems, line of sight can provides an alternative means by
which to foster engagement. Line of sight to an organisation’s strategic objectives is shown to
promote a feeling of ‘fit’ within the organisation (Boswell, et al., 2006), which is of particular
importance for disengaged employees who may struggle with feelings of isolation or exclusion.
9.3. Significance and Originality of the ResearchThis research made a number of contributions to the existing body of knowledge surrounding
hospitality and tourism, corporate social responsibility, and employee engagement. Specifically,
these findings address a number of the opportunities for original contributions to knowledge
previously identified in the conceptual framework developed in Chapter 4 (see Section 4.7.).
Figure 9.1 presents an updated version of this framework that highlights key areas of
contribution, including a more comprehensive understanding of the antecedents to employee
CSR engagement and disengagement. Understanding in these areas was achieved through an
individual perspective and expands upon previous findings to emphasise the importance of an
employees’ current state of engagement on the particular antecedents that most effect their
future engagement or disengagement. The significance and originality of this this research, as
well as its contribution to knowledge and practice, is summarised by the three key findings
outlined.
200
Figure 9.1. Revised Conceptual Framework for Engagement and DisengagementDeveloped by Author
1st Key Contribution: Employees exist along a spectrum of engagement
From both a theoretical and managerial perspective, one of the most important findings of this
research is the understanding that employees exist across a spectrum of engagement from
highly engaged to highly disengaged. In terms of theoretical contributions, a model of employee
engagement was developed, recognising employees exist along a spectrum and identifying a
range of personal, project, and organisational level factors that contribute to or impede
employee CSR engagement. The model highlights variations in antecedents to engagement
across the spectrum, identifying that employees are driven in different ways.
The practical implications of a spectrum of engagement are three-fold. Firstly, by recognising
individual needs in CSR engagement, the spectrum of engagement puts forward alternative
means to engage a range of employees, including those that are disengaged from organisational
CSR. Identifying employees along a spectrum inherently recognises that employees are driven
201
to engage in different ways; what may act as a driver for engagement for some employees may
drive disengagement for others. Therefore by giving employees the autonomy to position
themselves and the tools necessary to mobilise themselves along the spectrum of engagement,
organisations are able to remove barriers to participation and facilitate greater engagement.
This is intrinsically linked to the second practical implication that suggests due to the diversity
of individual CSR engagement, there is a case for greater regularity and embedding of corporate
social into the working month or year. This questions the effectiveness of existing engagement
practices of reaching a broad spectrum of employees and suggests that there are additional
avenues by which to encourage employee engagement. Specifically, the use of choice editing and
allowing employees to bring existing responsible behaviour into the workplace are identified as
avenues for increased CSR engagement.
Thirdly, practical contributions are made through the identification of key ways in which human
resource development can contribute to the adoption and dissemination of corporate
responsibility practices within organisations. The model highlights a number of ways in which
HRD can play a key role in the adoption and dissemination of corporate responsibility practices
within organisations. In particular, it suggests that the HRM-CSR nexus can be contribute to
employee CSR engagement through work-life balance; engagement strategies; hiring, employee-
organisation fit and the development of sustainability focused cultures. At its most basic level,
linking CSR with HRD can help employees recognise the benefits of corporate social
responsibility through training, education, and development. This research suggests that there
is a growing place for altruism to be included as part of professional development and thus
increasingly part of human resource management. Human resources also have a role to play in
terms of value fit and feelings of discomfort and isolation in the workplace.
2nd Key Contribution: Individual and person-centric perspective of CSR
The model of engagement developed by this research is intrinsically linked to the second key
contribution of this work, namely its impact on the understanding of person-centric and
individual level CSR. This study answers the call of Aguinis and Glavas (2012) for more micro-
level research on CSR as well as arguments for person-centric approach to CSR (e.g. Rupp, et al.,
2013a; Weiss & Rupp, 2011). It contributes to scant research in these areas by taking into
consideration the subjective experiences of individual employees engaging in corporate social
responsibility. Having studied employees’ subjective CSR experiences, individuality is identified
as a defining feature of employee CSR engagement. As a result, barriers and facilitators to
employee engagement are identified, including: employee CSR attributions; perceived benefits;
and intervention design, specifically interest and relevance and autonomy and choice. These
202
aspects of CSR engagement can both enable and inhibit employee individuality and realisation
of their whole-self in the workplace. Consequently, while there are clearly more than four
possible CSR features, the elements studied in this thesis were identified as being highly
influential antecedents to employee engagement and thus can serve as a reasonable starting
point for researchers and practitioners looking to understand employee CSR engagement based
on an organisations’ CSR activities. Future research could investigate other potential CSR
features such as the degree of formality of an organisation’s CSR (Russo & Tencati, 2009), and
the degree to which the organisation’s CSR activities are closely related to one another (Tang et
al., 2012).
An individual and person-centric perspective of CSR subsequently contributes to minimising the
gap in understanding of how employees assess and respond to CSR, a key gap in understanding
acknowledged within relevant literature (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Shen & Benson, 2014). Across
the spectrum of engagement, employees accept, interpret and operationalise CSR in different
ways with key variations identified between the responses of engaged and disengaged
employees. As it highlights differences amongst employee CSR engagement at a range of levels,
individual level CSR and the model of engagement can help managers to design increasingly
effective CSR policies and programmes for a range of different employees. By determining
where an employee sits along the spectrum, organisations are better equipped to identify and
address individual opportunities and barriers to CSR engagement.
Through person-centric and individual level analysis of CSR engagement, the extent and nature
of employee involvement in CSR is investigated. This directly addresses calls within the
literature for greater understanding of employee involvement and participation in corporate
social responsibility (see for example, Brammer, et al., 2007; Kim, et al., 2010; Liu, et al., 2010;
Powell, 2011). Despite being key stakeholders in CSR adoption and dissemination, little is
known about how CSR is experienced by employees themselves. This research contributes to
this understanding by conducting qualitative research that explores individual employees’
experiences participating in corporate social responsibility initiatives. While discussed in the 3rd
Key Contribution on the Reconceptualisation of Engagement, it is worth noting that an analysis
of employees’ subjective experiences with CSR has highlighted both positive and negative
unintended consequences. Consequently, by exploring individual differences this research not
only contributes to gaps in theory, but also identifies alternative means by which to engage
disengaged employees.
Lastly, this research addresses the need for multi-level studies within CSR (see: Aguinis &
Glavas, 2012; Lovia Boateng, 2014). It bridges organisational and individual CSR research by
203
examining CSR from the individual perspective but also drawing on overarching organisational
factors such as culture and leadership which ultimately influence employee CSR engagement.
Further, it addresses the role of industry in positively influencing employee concern for
environmental and social impact. The multi-level analysis suggests that CSR engagement is both
mobile and context dependent and highlights that employee engagement cannot be understood
in isolation, with organisational and industry contextual factors influencing willingness to
engage.
3rd Key Contribution: Reconceptualisation of Engagement
This research contributes to the reconceptualisation of engagement in four key ways. Firstly, by
unpacking the relationship between CSR and employee engagement, both positive and negative
effects of CSR are uncovered. It examines what Rupp and Mallory (2015) describe as the “dark
side of CSR” by exploring potential unintended negative consequences of CSR interventions.
Research has a tendency to focus on engagement rather than disengagement and thus, can
overlook the negative effects of corporate social responsibility in the workplace. This is
particularly true of sustainability focused cultures where pro-sustainable behaviour is viewed
as the norm. Nevertheless, as identified by this research, there are those employees who
struggle with aspects of corporate social responsibility, with reactions ranging from
disengagement, retaliation, or the development of coping mechanisms. Critically, the
unintended negative consequences of CSR can be exacerbated a lack of voice for disengaged
employees when it comes to CSR rhetoric. Exploring the negative effects of CSR therefore has
important consequences for practice. By identifying circumstances in which organisation may
employ CSR strategies that inadvertently drive disengagement, management practice benefits
from a greater understanding of when negative CSR effects may emerge. Preventative measures
against negative CSR outcomes are also identified thus, improving the employee CSR experience.
Secondly, by having examined potential negative consequences of CSR engagement,
disengagement from these activities is framed more positively. It recognises that employees will
engage sometimes and disengage at other times, with CSR falling across a spectrum rather than
being characterised by absolutes. It suggests that there are no absolutes in terms of
engagement, with employees unable to be wholly engaged or wholly disengaged. As a result,
employee CSR engagement is shown to be fluid and contextual and thus, malleable. While efforts
can be made to improve employee CSR engagement, critically research findings suggest that
employees require the freedom to engage and disengage in different contexts and at different
times.
204
Thirdly, this research contributes to growing literature that suggests engagement and
disengagement are not opposing concepts. As demonstrated by these research findings, at least
in the context of corporate social responsibility engagement, the absence of identified drivers
for engagement cannot necessarily be said to be the antecedents of disengagement. This model
therefore adds to knowledge by identifying antecedents as they relate to both engagement and
disengagement. In addition to addressing a void in theory, it contributes to practise;
practitioners who can identify potential antecedents to both engagement and disengagement
may be better equipped to present viable strategies to stakeholders, identify potential
challenges and communicate with clearer vision and direction (Wollard & Shuck, 2011).
Fourthly, in recognising that engagement and disengagement are not opposites, it adds to
knowledge of determining factors of disengagement. In the discussion of antecedents to
engagement a lack of attention has been given to the causal or determining factors of
disengagement (Pech & Slade, 2006). Subsequently, very little information exists on the
antecedents of disengagement. This model therefore adds to knowledge by identifying
antecedents as they relate to both engagement and disengagement. The literature suggests that
antecedents to employee engagement must be in place before an organisation can reap the
benefits of an engaged workforce (Rich, et al., 2010; Saks, 2006). Therefore identifying and
integrating these antecedents is fundamental to the successful development of employee CSR
engagement. The analysis of unique antecedents to engagement and disengagement thus forms
an important contribution of this research.
9.3.1. Employee CSR Engagement Research and TheoryThis thesis challenges current conceptualisations of both stakeholder theory and social identity
theory. By using stakeholder theory in conjunction with social identity theory, this thesis
develops a finer grained conceptualisation of employees as a stakeholder group. Where as a
coarse-grained analysis, which is typical within the literature, examines generic activities and
conditions influencing stakeholder behaviour, a fine-grained approach enables the identification
of unique opportunities and barriers to employee CSR engagement. Consequently, though there
is an implicit assumption within the literature that stakeholder groups are homogenous, a fine-
grained approach suggests instead that employees are driven to engage and disengage in unique
ways, depending on where they sit along the spectrum of engagement. Therefore, in addition to
diverse needs and expectations in relation to CSR arising between stakeholder groups, it is
evident that diversity also occurs within a single stakeholder group.
Nevertheless, stakeholder groups are identified and defined based on a shared interest and
thus, have been treated as a single, homogenous entity. However, as evidenced by the research
findings, though employees may share a common interest in the organisation, this does not
205
necessitate additional shared interest nor shared values. Therefore, while stakeholder theory is
effective in offering normative and instrumental support for the inclusion of stakeholders in
managerial decision-making, the tendency to define stakeholders based on their generic
economic function limits understanding of the needs, expectations, and experiences of
employees, particularly in relation to CSR engagement. Specifically, as illustrated by Crane and
Ruebottom (2011, p. 77), “such categories ignore the social glue, the bonds of group cohesion,
identity, and difference that typically form the basis for claim making in relation to the firm”.
Employees do not make claims on the organisation simply on the basis of being a constituent of
the labour market, but rather as individuals who affect and are affected by the organisation in a
diverse range of ways. Therefore, in order for organisations to successful engage with this
stakeholder groups, there is need to understand the identification that drives constituency
membership in a more sophisticated way.
When applied in conjunction with stakeholder theory, social identity theory subsequently
contributes to understanding subordinate groups within the superordinate group. By examining
the ways in which employees derive identity and meaning within the workplace, this thesis
contributes to the understanding of employees based on the interests, values, and expectations
brought forward by social identity. Discarding assumptions of internal homogeneity within
stakeholder groups facilitates a better understanding of the individual perspective of
organisational CSR engagement. Furthermore, by proposing an adaptation to stakeholder
theory whereby employees are also conceptualised based on their social identities, this research
contributes to minimizing the current overemphasis of employees based on their roles, rather
than relationships and identity. The treatment of employees as objects is a key paradigm in
industrial-organizational psychology and yet, this view can fail to capture the nuanced
relationship between employees and the firm and can make it difficulty for organisations to
effectively engage stakeholders.
Importantly, diversity within stakeholder groups exacerbates the need for employee
participation in corporate social responsibility design and development. A critical element
missing from the stakeholder approach to CSR is the involvement of employees. Despite
stakeholder theory being specifically concerned with “who has input in decision-making”
(Phillips et al., 2003) and employees virtually indisputably recognised as a key stakeholder
(Greenwood, 2008; Greenwood and Freeman, 2011), employees remain largely absent from the
development and implementation of CSR, despite being expected to active participants of final
CSR policy and practice. As a result, research findings expand current theoretical positions on
the involvement of stakeholders in organisational decision-making concerning corporate social
206
responsibility. Communication with stakeholders thus forms an essential element in the design,
implementation, and success of CSR interventions.
In addition, this research contributes to the development of social identity theory by identifying
the role and relevance of subgroups within an organisation. It has been the pervasive
assumption within the CSR and engagement literature that employees derive identity from the
organisation as a whole. However, in identifying divergent values and interests that prevent at
least some employees from deriving a meaningful identity from the organisation, employees are
shown to display subunit-specific identities. As a result, subordinate identities may provide a
more meaningful basis for self-defintion than superordinate identity. It would therefore seem
that activating superordaite identities may not be the most effective approach to driving
engagement in CSR interventions.
9.4. Conclusions and Directions for Future ResearchThis thesis has endeavoured to address employee CSR engagement from an individual and
person-centric perspective. In doing so, it provides guidance for practitioners on how to
facilitate employee CSR engagement within their organisations, as well as filling gaps in the
existing literature on hospitality and tourism, employee engagement, and corporate social
responsibility. The fundamental objective of this research was to contribute to the
understanding of employees’ engagement in CSR interventions in multinational tourism and
hospitality organisations
Within the context of tourism and hospitality multinationals, and in consideration of the
opportunities and barriers to employee CSR engagement, a model for employee engagement
was developed. Context specific factors, including an increased expectation and sense of
obligation for CSR due to the potential negative social, environmental, and economic impacts
associated with H&T, were identified as driving employee CSR engagement. As such, a
recommendation for future research would be to apply and compare this model in alternative
contexts, including those outside of both hospitality and tourism and outside of multinational
organisations. It would be interesting to investigate how CSR engagement might differ and to
see if any additional drivers for engagement are context specific, therefore contributing to a
greater understanding of drivers for employees engagement or disengagement from corporate
social responsibility efforts.
In addition, aspects of social identity, including both individual interests and values, were
shown to influence employee CSR engagement. While this research focused the significant
differences found between engaged and disengaged employees as a general whole, an
207
examination of the subsequent differences within these two groups presents a valuable area for
further research. Because demographic variables have been shown to possess significant
relationships with both social identity and corporate social responsibility, it would be
meaningful to further identify individual differences (e.g. age, tenure, job role) in relation to
employee CSR engagement and disengagement. In addition, continued research at the
individual-level would contribute to further understanding employee CSR disengagement and
why CSR may under certain conditions influence some employees positively and others
negatively.
An additional limitation of this thesis and indeed CSR research in general, is caused by the
fragmented and inconsistent definition of CSR (Dahlsrud, 2008). Specifically, in the context of
in-depth interviews, as were used in this thesis, employees interpret and understand CSR to be
different things. Indeed, it became clear that within the case study organisations, employees
largely understood CSR to be specific elements of the organisations overarching corporate
responsibility strategy, rather than referring to the strategy as a whole. However, In spite of
limited employee knowledge of the formal elements of the company’s CSR, it was noted during
interviews that employees ranged from those who were enthusiastic supporters of CSR to
others who had little or no interest in CSR activities. Nevertheless, employee understanding of
CSR as being limited to corporate fundraising and corporate volunteering, which are largely
peripheral activities, raises several questions surrounding CSR communication and employee
understanding and engagement with corporate responsibility, and thus highlight key areas for
further research.
Furthermore, while this research was situated within best practise, a recommendation for
future research would be to investigate worst-case scenarios, or those organisations who do not
hold a predominantly sustainability focused culture. As evidenced by this research,
sustainability focused cultures, their leadership, values, and willingness to invest resources in
corporate social responsibility affect employee engagement in these practises. However, within
business, sustainability focused cultures have not yet become the norm. It would therefore be
interesting to examine employee CSR engagement within this setting.
In addition, this research was limited by the challenge of gaining access and authorisation to
employees, specifically those who were disengaged. While additional steps were taken to
achieve data saturation and to fully explore the research question, limited access resulted in a
relative lack of control over respondents by the researcher and highlighted the challenge of
involving corporate social responsibility teams in the evaluation of CSR engagement. An
exploration of the impact of research access on both corporate social responsibility and
208
employee engagement studies would subsequently provide a greater understanding of research
in these fields.
Lastly, while this research provides insight into employee CSR engagement, a possible limitation
arises from the qualitative case-based method. Qualitative research contributes to our
understanding of the individual, subjective experiences of employees participating in CSR;
however, the learning arising from the study can be pursued and further tested through
quantitative survey methods in order to provide for balanced, comparative analysis. As more
information is gathered on how CSR efforts affect employees, the differential effects across
individuals becomes clearer. Nevertheless, relatively few studies have reported the moderating
effects of culture, gender, race, age, and other demographic variables on the effects of CSR on
employee-level outcomes. Scholars and practitioners would benefit from a greater
understanding of when these variables affect employee CSR experiences, and why.
Word Count: 84,449
209
ReferencesAckerman, R., 1973. How companies respond to social demands. Harvard Business Review, 51(4), pp. 88-98.
Afrin, S., 2013. Traditional vs Strategic Corporate Social: In pursuit of supporting Sustainable Development. Journal of Economic and Sustainabel Development, 4(20), pp. 153-157.
Agle, B., Mitchell, R. & Sonnenfeld, J., 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), pp. 507-525.
Aguilera, R. et al., 2007. Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), pp. 932-968.
Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A., 2012. What We Know and Don't Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), pp. 932-968.
Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A., 2013. Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: psychological foundations. Industrial Organizational Psychology, Volume 6, pp. 314-332.
Agypt, B., Christensen, R. & Nesbit, R., 2012. Tale of Two Charitable Campaigns: Longitudinal Analysis of Employee Giving at a Public University. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), pp. 802-825.
Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A., 1985. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, pp. 263-295.
Aléx, L. & Hammarström, A., 2008. Shift in power during an interview situation: methodological reflections inspired by Foucault and Bourdieu. Nursing, 15(2), pp. 169-176.
Altman, B. & Vidaver-Cohen, D., 2000. A framework for understanding corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 105(1), pp. 1-7.
Alvarado-Herrera, A., Bigne, E., Aldas-Manzano, J. & Curras-Perez, R., 2015. A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Following the Sustainable Development Paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume In Press, pp. 1-20.
Alvesson, M., Ashcraft, K., Thomas, R., 2008. Identity matters: Reflections on the construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization, 15(1), pp. 5-28.
Amabile, T.M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P.W., Marsh, M., Kramer, S.J., 2001. Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: a case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), pp. 418-431.
Andersson, L., 1996. Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, Volume 49, pp. 1395-1417.
210
Andreoni, J., 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), pp. 464-477.
Andreoni, J., 1995. Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effect of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), pp. 1-21.
Angus-Leppan, T. & Benn, S., 2007. Building a framework for implementing total responsibility management. Sydney, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management.
Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L. & Benn, S., 2010. Leadership Styles and CSR Practice: An Examination of Sensemaking, Institutional Drivers, and CSR Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), pp. 189-213.
App, S., Merk, J. & Buttgen, M., 2012. Employer Branding: Sustainable HRM as a Competitive Advantage in the Market for High-Quality Employees. Management Revue, 23(3), pp. 262-278.
Arakawa, D. & Greenberg, M., 2007. Optimistic managers and the influence on productivity and employee engagement in a technology organization: Implications for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology review, 2(1), pp. 78-89.
Argyris, C., 1977. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), pp. 115-129.
Argyris, C., 1993. Knowledge for Action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Argyris, C., 1998. Empowerment: The Emperor's New Clothes. In: Creative Management. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Argyris, C. & Schön, D., 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Armstrong, S. & Sadler-Smith, E., 2008. Learning on Demand, at Your Own Pace, in Rapid Bite-Sized Chunks: The Future Shape of Management Development. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7(4), pp. 571-586.
Arrigo, E., 2003. Corporate Responsibility in Scarcity Economy: The Olivetti Case. Emerging Issues in Management, 1(1), pp. 114-134.
Ashforth, B. & Gibbs, B., 1990b. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, Volume 1, pp. 177-194.
Ashforth, B. & Mael, F., 1989. Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), p. 20.
Ashforth, B.E. and Johnson, S.A., 2001. "The Relative Salience of Multiple Identities in Organizational Contexts” in Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (eds.) Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts. Psychology Press: Philadelphia, PA.
Ashworth, G. & Goodall, B., 1990. Marketing Tourism Places. London: Routledge.
211
Audi, R., 2010. Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F. & May, D., 2004. Unlocking the mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, Volume 15, pp. 801-823.
Azim, M.T., 2016. Corporate social responsibility and employee behavior: Mediating role of organizational commitment. Revenue Business Management, 18, pp. 207–225.
Backstrand, K., 2006. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability, and effectiveness. Environmental Policy and Governance, 16(5), pp. 290-306.
Bagnoli, M. & Watts, S., 2003. Selling to Socially Responsible Consumers: Competition and the Private Provision of Public Goods. Journal of Economic and Management Strategy, 12(3), pp. 419-445.
Bakker, A., Albrecht, S. & Leiter, M., 2011. Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), pp. 4-28.
Bakker, A. & Demerouti, E., 2007. The job demands-resource model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E. & Schaufeli, W., 2003. Dual processes at work in a call center: An application of the job-demands resource model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(4), pp. 393-417.
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E. & Verbeke, W., 2004. Using the job demands-resource model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), pp. 83-104.
Bakker, A. & Leiter, M., 2010. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Balmer, J. & Greyser, S., 2003. Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding, and Corporate-Level Marketing. London: Routledge.
Banerjee, B., 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), pp. 51-79.
Bao, Y., Dolan, S. & Tzafrir, S., 2012. Value congruence in organizations: Literature review, theoretical perspectives, and future directions. s.l.:ESADE Working Paper N. 239.
Barker, R. & Gower, K., 2010. Strategic application of storytelling in organizations toward effective communication in a diverse world. Journal of Business Communication, 47(3), pp. 295-312.
Barker-Scott, B., 2009. Participation that matters: creating shifts that enable individual and organizational change. s.l.:IRC Article Series.
Barnard, C., 1968. The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
212
Barnett, M., 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), pp. 794-816.
Barnett, M. & Lee, S., 2012. Business as usual? An exploration of the determinants of success in the multinational transfer of corporate responsibility initiatives. Business and Politics, 14(1), pp. 1-27.
Baron, D., 2001. Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10(1), pp. 7-45.
Barrett, D., 2002. Change communication: using strategic employee communication to faciliate major change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(4), pp. 219-231.
Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S., 1989. Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. London: Random House.
Basil, D., Runte, S., Easwaramoorthy, M. & Barr, C., 2009. Company Support for Employee Volunteering: A National Survey of Companies in Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 85, pp. 385-398.
Bass, B., 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), pp. 19-31.
Bass, B., 1998. Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B., 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Volume 8, pp. 9-32.
Bass, B., 2000. The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7(3), pp. 18-40.
Bass, B., 2005. Transformational Leadership. New York: Routledge.
Bass, B., 2008. The Bass handbook of leadership. 4th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. & Avolio, B., 1994. Tranformational leadership and organizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration, Volume 17, pp. 541-554.
Bass, B. & Riggio, R., 2006. Transformational leadership. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Batson, C., 1991. The altruism question: towarsd a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bauman, C. & Skitka, L., 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Source of Employee Satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 32, pp. 63-86.
Baumruk, R., 2004. The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, Volume 47, pp. 48-52.
Baum, T., 2007. Human Resources in tourism: Still waiting for change. Tourism Management, 26(6), pp. 1383-1399.
213
Baum, T., 2008. Implications of hospitality and tourism labour markets for talent management strategies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), pp. 720-729.
Baum, T. et al., 2016. Sustainability and the Tourism and Hospitality Workforce: A Thematic Analysis. Sustainability, 8(8), p. 809.
Beech, R. & Anderson, B., 2003. Corporate America: The role of HR in re-engaging restless employees. Benefits and Compensation International, 33(5), p. 14.
Beer, M. & Eisenstat, R., 2000. The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning. Sloan Management Review, 29(40), p. 41.
Beeton, S., 2005. The Case Study in Tourism Research: A Multi-method Case Study Approach. In: B. Ritchie, P. Burns & C. Palmer, eds. Tourism Research Methods. Cambridge: CABI, pp. 37-48.
Behrend, T. et al., 2008. Measurement Invariance in Careers Research: Using IRT to Study Gender Differences in Medical Students' Specialization Decisions. Journal of Career Development, 35(1), pp. 60-83.
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P., 2011a. A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), pp. 924-973.
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P., 2011b. Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, age, and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, Volume 2, pp. 337-365.
Bell, S. & Menguc, B., 2002. The employee-organization relationship, organizational citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality. Journal of Retailing, 78(2), pp. 131-146.
Bennett, R., 2003. Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), pp. 12-29.
Benn, S., Dunphy, D. & Griffiths, A., 2006. Enabling Change for Corporate Sustainability: An Integrated Perspective. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 13(3), pp. 156-165.
Bentein, K., Stinglhamber, F. & Vandenberghe, C., 2002. Organization, supervisor, and workgroup-directed citizenship behaviors: A comparison of models. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), pp. 341-362.
Berg, B., 2007. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Berger, I., Cunningham, P. & Drumwright, M., 2006. Identity, Identification, and Relationship through Social Alliances. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), pp. 128-137.
Berglind, M. & Nakata, C., 2005. Cause-related marketing: more buck than bang?. Business Horizons, 48(5), pp. 443-453.
Berrone, P., Gelabert, L. & Fosfurri, A., 2009. The impact and substantive actions on environmental legitimacy. University of Navarra: Working Paper - 778 IESE Business School.
214
Bertels, S. & Peloza, J., 2008. Running just to stand still? Managing CSR reputation in an era of ratcheting expectations. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(1), pp. 56-72.
Bezuijen, X., Berg, P., Dam, K. & Thierry, H., 2009. Pygmalion and employee learning: The role of leader behaviours. Journal of Management, 35(5), pp. 1248-1267.
Bhattacharya, C., Korschun, D. & Sen, S., 2009. Strengthening Stakeholder-Company Relationships Through Mutually Beneficial Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 85, pp. 257-272.
Bhattacharya, C. & Sen, S., 2004. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), pp. 9-24.
Bhattacharya, C., Sen, S. & Korschum, D., 2008. Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. Sloan Management Review, Volume 49, pp. 36-45.
Bhindi, P., 1997. Authenticity in leadership: An emerging perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(3), pp. 195-209.
Blackburn, W., 2007. The Sustainability Handbook. London, UK: Earthscan.
Blake, J., 1999. Overcoming the value-action gap in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), pp. 257-278.
Blau, P., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Bohdanowicz, P., 2007. A case study of Hilton Environmental Reporting as a tool of Corporate Social Responsibility. Tourism Review International, 11(2), pp. 115-131.
Bohdanowicz, P. & Zientara, P., 2008. Corporate social responsibility in hospitality: Issues and implications: A case study of Scandic. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(4), pp. 271-293.
Bommer, W., Rich, G. & Rubin, R., 2005. Changing Attitudes about Change: Longitudinal Effects of Transformational Leader Behavior on Employee Cynicism about Organizational Change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Volume 26, pp. 733-753.
Bondy, K., Matten, D. & Moon, J., 2008. Multinational corporation codes of conduct: governance tools for corporate social responsibility?. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4), pp. 294-311.
Bondy, K. & Starkey, K., 2014. The Dilemmas of Internationalization: Corporate Social Responsibility in the Multinational Corporation. British Journal of Management, 25(1), pp. 4-22.
Booth, J., Park, K. & Glomb, T., 2009. Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits: Gift Exchange Among Employers, Employees, and Volunteer Organizations. Human Resources Management, 48(2), pp. 227-249.
Boswell, W., 2006. Aligning employees with organisation's strategic objectives: out of 'line of sight', out of mind. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(9), pp. 1489-1511.
215
Boswell, W., Bingham, J. & Colvin, A., 2006. Aligning employees through 'line of sight'. Business Horizons, Volume 49, pp. 499-509.
Boulstridge, E. & Carrigan, M., 2000. Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitute-behavior gap. Journal of Communication Management, 44(4), pp. 355-368.
Bowen, H., 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper & Row.
Brammer, S., He, H., and Mellahi, K., 2015. Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort: The moderating impact of corporate ability. Group Organ. Manag. 40, pp. 323–352.
Brammer, S. & Millington, A., 2003. The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure and industry type on corporate communicty involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), pp. 213-226.
Brammer, S., Millington, A. & Rayton, B., 2007. The Contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility to Organizational Commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), pp. 1701-1719.
Bramwell, B. & Altorp, L., 2001. Attitudes in the Danish Tourism Industry to the Roles of Business and Government in Sustainable Tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(2), pp. 91-103.
Bramwell, B. & Lane, B., 2000. Tourism Collaboration and Parnerships: Politics, Practice, and Sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View.
Bramwell, B. & Sharman, A., 1999. Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), pp. 392-415.
Branco, M. & Rodrigues, L., 2006. Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), pp. 111-132.
Breeze, B., 2013. Corporate philanthropy on the shop floor: what drives employee fundraising. CGAP Working Paper.
Brenner, S., 1992. Ethics programmes and their dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 11, pp. 391-399.
Brewer, M.B., 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, pp. 475-482.
Brewer, M.B., 1993. The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behaviour. In Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (Eds.), Group motivation: School Psychological Perspectives. London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 1-16.
Bridoux, F., Stofberg, N., and Den Hartog, D., 2016. Stakeholders' responses to CSR tradeoffs: When other-orientation and trust trump material self-interest. Frontiers in Psychology, 14(6), pp. 1-18.
Brown, M., Trevino, L. & Harrison, D., 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume
216
97, pp. 117-134.
Brown, S. & Leigh, T., 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), pp. 358-368.
Bruch, H. & Walter, F., 2005. The Keys to Rethinking Corporate Philanthropy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), pp. 49-55.
Bruhn, J., 2008. Value Dissonance and Ethics Failure in Academia: A Causal Connection. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), pp. 17-32.
Bryman, B. & Bell, E., 2011. Business Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Budeanu, A., 2000. A Tour to Sustainability? A discussion on the potential for tour operators to promote sustainable tourism. Lund: The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics.
Budeanu, A., 2005. Impacts and responsibilities for sustainable tourism: A tour operator's perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(2), pp. 89-97.
Bunting, M., 2004. Willing slaves, how the overwork culture is ruling our lives. London: Harper Collins.
Burchell, J., 2008. The Corporate Social Responsibility Reader. London: Routledge.
Burke, L. & Logsdon, J., 1996. How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), pp. 495-502.
Burke, R., 2014. Encouraging employee voice is vital to leadership success. Effective Execution, 17(3), p. 35.
Burke, R., Koyuncu, M., Jing, W. & Fiksenbaum, L., 2009. Work engagement among hotel managers in Beijing, China: Potential antecedents and consequences. Tourism Review, 64(3), pp. 4-18.
Burns, J., 1978. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Burt, R., 1983. Corporate Philanthropy as a Cooperative Relation. Social Forces, 62(1), pp. 419-449.
Burton, B. and Dunn, C., 1996. Collaborative control and the commons: Safeguarding employee rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6, pp. 277-288.
Cai, Z. & Wheale, P., 2004. Creating Sustainable Corporate Value: A Case Study of Stakeholder Relationship Management in China. Business and Society Review, 109(4), pp. 507-547.
Caldwell, C., Floyd, L., Atkins, R. & Holzgrefe, R., 2012. Ethical duties of organizational citizens: Obligations owed by highly committed employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(3), pp. 285-299.
217
Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A. & Jiang, K., 2013. Win-win-win: The influence of company sponsored volunteerism programs on employees, NGOs and business units. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), pp. 825-860.
Campbell, J., 2006. Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate social responsibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), pp. 925-938.
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G. & Waldman, D., 2007. The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment, and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, Volume 44, pp. 972-992.
Carmeli, A., Meitar, R. & Weisberg, J., 2006. Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Management, 27(1), pp. 75-90.
Carrigan, M. & Attalla, A., 2001. The myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), pp. 560-577.
Carroll, A., 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A., 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), pp. 39-48.
Carroll, A., 1998. The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 100-101(1), pp. 1-7.
Carroll, A., 1999. Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business and Society, 38(3), pp. 268-295.
Carroll, A., 2015. Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organizational Dynamics, Volume 44, pp. 87-96.
Carroll, A., 2016. Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(3), pp. 1-8.
Carroll, A. & Shabana, K., 2010. The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Concepts, Research and Practice. International Journal of Management Review, 12(1), pp. 85-105.
Cartwright, S. & Holmes, N., 2006. The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, Volume 16, pp. 199-208.
Chalofsky, N., 2010. An emerging construct for meaningful work. Human Resource Development International, 6(1), pp. 69-83.
Chen, Y. & Hung-Baesecke, C., 2014. Examining the internal aspect of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Leader behaviour and employee CSR participation. Communication Research Reports, 31(2), pp. 210-220.
Chinander, K., 2001. Aligning accountability and awareness for environmental performance in operations. Production and Operations Management, 10(3), pp. 276-291.
218
Chou, C., 2014. Hotels' environmental policies and employee personal environmental beliefs: Interactions and outcomes. Tourism Management, Volume 40, pp. 436-446.
Christensen, R., Nesbit, R. & Agypt, B., 2016. To give or not to give: Employee responses to workplace giving campaigns over time. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(6), pp. 1-18.
Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C., and Burke, M.J., 2009. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, pp. 1103-1127,
Christie, P., Kwon, I., Stoeberl, P. & Baumhart, R., 2003. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Ethical Attitudes of Business Managers: India, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 46, pp. 263-287.
Chua, R. & Iyengar, S., 2006. Empowerment through choice? A critical analysis of the effects of choice in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 27, pp. 41-79.
Chun, H. & Giebelhausen, M., 2012. Reversing the green backlash in services: Credible competitors help large companies go green. Journal of Service Management, Volume 23, pp. 400-415.
Ciulla, J., 1996. Leadership and the problem of bogus empowerment. Maryland, Kellogg Leadership Studies Project, Center for Political Leadership and Participation.
Ciulla, J., 2004. Ethics, the Heart of Leadership. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Praeger.
Clarkson, M., 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp. 92-117.
Clarkson, M., 1998. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 92-117.
Clarkson, M., Starik, M., Cochran, P., Jones, T.M., 1994. The Toronto conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory. Business and Society, 33(1), pp. 82.
Clegg, S., Komberger, M. & Rhodes, C., 2007. Business ethics as practice. British Journal of Management, Volume 18, pp. 107-122.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K., 2000. Research Methods in Education. 5th ed. London: Routledge Falmer.
Cohen, S., Higham, J. & Cavaliere, C., 2011. Binge flying: Behavioural addition and climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), pp. 1070-1089.
Coles, T., Fenclova, E. & Dinan, C., 2013. Tourism and corporate social responsibility: A critical review and research agenda. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6(1), pp. 122-141.
Collier, J. & Esteban, R., 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility and employee commitment. Business Ethics, 16(1), pp. 19-33.
Cone Communications, 2009. Past. Present. Future. The 25th Anniversary of Cause Marketing, Boston, MA: Cone Communications.
219
Conger, J. & Kanungo, R., 1992. Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24(1), pp. 86-102.
Cook, S., 2008. The Essential Guide to Employee Engageemnt: Better Business Performance Through Staff Satisfaction. London: Koogan Page.
Coombs, W. & Holladay, S., 2012. Fring public relations: How activism moves critical PR towards the mainstream. Public Relations Review, 38(5), pp. 880-887.
Cooper, C., Ryhanen, L., and Scott, N. (2015) “Tourism: Are the Stakeholders Research-Averse”, in Vir Signh, T. (ed.) Challenges in Tourism Research. Bristol, UK: Channel View, pp. 309-324.
Co-Operative Bank, 2011. The Ethical Consumerism Report 2011. [Online] Available at: http://www.co-operative.coop/PageFiles/416561607/Ethical-Consumerism-Report-2011.pdf[Accessed 25 September 2015].
Co-Operative Bank, 2015. Ethical Consumer Markets Report 2015. [Online] Available at: www.ethicalconsumer.org/researchhub/ukethicalmarket.aspx[Accessed 1 December 2016].
Corbett, J., Webster, J., and Jenkin, T.A., 2015. Unmasking corporate sustainability at the project level: Exploring the influence of institutional logics and individual agency. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-26.
Corley, K.G., Harquail, C.V., Pratt, M.G., Glynn, M.A., Fiol, C.M., and Hatch, M.J., 2006. Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), pp. 85-99.
Cornelissen, J., 2004. Communications: Theory and Practice. London, UK: Sage.
Corporate Leadership Council, 2004. Driving performance and retention through employee engagement, Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board.
Costas, J. & Kärreman, D., 2013. Conscience as control - managing employees through CSR. Organization, 20(3), pp. 394-415.
Cotton, J. et al., 1988. Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), pp. 8-22.
Cowe, R., 2004. CSR hits the boardroom. ,, European Business Forum.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. & Neuman, J., 2004. The psychological contract and individual differences: The role of exchange and creditor ideologise. Journal of Vocational Bheavior, Volume 64, pp. 150-164.
Crabtree, S., 2005. Engagement Keeps the Doctor Away: A happy employee is a healthy employee, according to a GMJ survey. Gallup Management Journal, Volume 13, pp. 1-4.
Crabtree, S., 2014. Worldwide, 13% of Employees are Engaged at Work: Low work place engagement offers opportunity to improve business outcomes. Gallup Management Journal.
220
Crane, A., 1995. Rhetoric and reality in the greening of organizational culture. Greener Management International, Volume 12, pp. 49-62.
Crane, A. & Livesey, L., 2003. Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In: J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted & S. Rahman, eds. Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Relationships, Communication, Reporting, and Performance. Sheffield: Greenleaf, pp. 39-52.
Crane, A. & Matten, D., 2004. Questioning the Domain of Business Ethics Curriculum. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), pp. 357-369.
Crane, A., Matten, D., and Moon, J., 2004. Stakeholders as citizens: Rethinking rights, participation, and democracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), pp. 107-122.
Crane, A., Matten, D. & Spence, L., 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Crane, A. and Ruebottom, T., 2012. Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), pp. 77-87.
Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M., 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, Volume 31, pp. 874-900.
Crowhurst, I., 2013. The fallacy of the instrumental gate? Contextualising the process of gaining access through gatekeepers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(6), pp. 463-475.
Crumpler, H. & Grossman, P., 2008. An experimental test of warm glow giving. Journal of Public Economics, Volume 92, pp. 1011-1021.
Cruz, L. & Pedrozo, E., 2009. Corporate social responsibility and green management: Relation between headquarters and subsidiary in multinational corporations. Management Decision, 47(7), pp. 1174-1199.
Cullinane, N. & Donaghey, J., 2014. Employee silence. In: A. Wilkinson, J. Donaghey, T. Dundon & R. Freeman, eds. Handbook of Research on Employee Voice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 398-409.
Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), pp. 1-13.
Daily, B., Bishop, J. & Govindarajulu, N., 2009. Conceptual model for organisational citizenship behaviour directed toward the environment. Business & Society, Volume 48, pp. 243-256.
Daily, B. & Huang, S., 2001. Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(12), pp. 1539-1552.
Daniels, K. & Bailey, A., 1999. Strategy development processes and participation in decision-making: predictors of role stressors and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(1), pp.
221
27-42.
Dasborough, M. & Ashkanasy, N., 2005. Follower Emotional Reactions to Authentic and Inauthentic Leadership Influence. Monographs in Leadership and Management, Volume 3, pp. 281-300.
David, P., Bloom, M. & Hillman, A., 2007. Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management, Volume 28, pp. 91-100.
Davies, I. & Crane, A., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility in Small and Medium Size Enterprises: Investigating Employee Engagement in Fair Trade Companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(2), pp. 126-139.
Davis, K., 1960. Can businesses afford to ignore social responsibilities. California Management Review, 2(3), pp. 70-76.
Davis, K., 1967. Understanding the social responsibility puzzle: What does the businessman owe to society. Business Horizons, 10(4), pp. 45-50.
Davis, K., 1973. The case for and against business assumptions of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), pp. 312-323.
Davis, W. & Gardner, W., 2004. Perceptions of Politics and Organizational Cynicism: An Attributional and Leader-Member Exchange Perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 15, pp. 439-465.
Dawkins, J., 2005. Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management, 9(2), pp. 108-119.
Dawkins, J. & Lewis, S., 2003. CSR in Stakeholder Expectations and their Implicatiosn for Company Strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 44, pp. 185-193.
De Gilder, D., Schuyt, T. & Breedijk, M., 2005. Effects of an Employee Volunteering Program on the Work Force: The ABN-AMRO Case. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(2), pp. 143-152.
De Roeck, K. & Delobbe, N., 2012. Do environmental CSR initiatives serve organizations' legitimacy in the oil industry? Exploring employees' recations through organizational identification theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), pp. 397-412.
De Roeck, K., Marique, G., Stinglhamberb, F.; Swaen, V., 2014. Understanding employees' responses to corporate social responsbility: Mediating roles of overall justice and organisational identification. International Journal of Human Resource Mangemnt, 25, pp. 91-112.
Deakin, S. & Whittaker, D., 2007. Re-embedding the corporation? Comparative perspectives on corporate governance, employment relations, and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance, 15(1), pp. 1-4.
Dean, J., Brandes, P. & Dharwadkar, R., 1998. Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, Volume 23, pp. 341-353.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R., 1987. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Juornal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 53, pp. 1024-1037.
222
Deery, M., Jago, L. & Stewart, M., 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility within the Hospitality Industry. Tourism Review International, Volume 1, pp. 107-114.
Delmas, M. & Cuerel Burbano, V., 2011. Environmental management and regulatory uncertainty. California Management Review, 54(1), pp. 64-87.
Demerouti, E. et al., 2001. Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, 27(1), pp. 279-286.
den Hond, F. and de Bakker, F.G.A., 2007. Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), pp. 901-924.
Denning, S., 2005. The Leaders Guide to Storytelling. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Denton, D., 1999. Employee involvement, pollution control and pieces to the puzzle. Environmental Management and Health, 10(2), pp. 105-111.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y., 2005. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Desai, A. & Rittenburg, T., 1997. Global ethics: An integrative framework for MNEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), pp. 791-800.
Detert, J. & Burris, E., 2007. Leadership behaviour and employee voice: is the door really open. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), pp. 869-884.
Devinney, T., 2009. Is the sociall responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), pp. 44-56.
Diaz-Saenz, H., 2011. Transformational Leadership. In: A. Bryman, et al. eds. The SAGE Handbook of Leadership. Thoussand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 299-310.
Dickson, R., 2004. CSR: Moving on to the front foot. s.l., European Business Forum.
Dillon, P.J., 2015. Organizational CSR Identities and the Role of Responsible Leadership. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1).
Dirks, K. & Ferrin, D., 2002. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implictions for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 87, pp. 611-628.
Ditlev-Simonsen, C., 2015. The relationship bewteen Norwegian and Swedish employees' perception of corporate social responsibility and affective commitment. Business in Society, Volume 54, pp. 229-253.
D'Netto, B. & Ahmed, E., 2012. Generation Y: Human Resource Management Implications. Journal of Business Policy Research, 1(1), pp. 1-9.
Dodds, R. & Joppe, R., 2005. CSR in the Tourism Industry? The Status of and Potential for Certification, Codes of Conduct and Guidelines, Washington: IFC/World Bank.
223
Dodds, R. & Kuehnel, J., 2010. CSR among Canadian mass tour operators: Good awareness but little action. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), pp. 221-244.
Dogl, C. & Holtbrugge, D., 2014. Corproate environmental responsibility, employer reputation and employee commitment: An empirical study in developed and emerging economies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(12), pp. 1739-1762.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L., 1995. The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation; Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp. 65-91.
Donia, M. & Sirsly, C., 2016. Determinants and consequences of employee attributions of corporate social responsibility as substantive or symbolic. European Management Journal, 34(3), pp. 232-242.
Donia, M., Sirsly, C. & Ronen, S., 2016. Employee Attributions of Corporate Social Responsibility as Substantive or Symbolic: Validation of Measure. Applied Psychology, 66(1), pp. 103-142.
Drezner, N., 2013. Expanding the Donor Base in Higher Education: Engaging Non-Traditional Donors. New York, NY: Routledge.
Drumwright, M., 1994. Socially Responsible Organisational Buying: Environmental Concern as a Noneconomic Buying Criterion. Journal of Marketing, 58(July), pp. 1-19.
Duarte, F., 2010. Working with corporate social responsibility in Brazilian companies: the role of managers: Values in the maintenance of CSR cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), pp. 355–368.
Duarte, A., 2011. Corporate Responsibility from an employees' perspective: Contributes for understanding job attitudes, Lisbon: Instituto Universitario de Lisboa.
Duarte, A. & Neves, J., 2010. Fostering employees' organizational citizenship behavior: The role of corporate investment in social responsibility. In: S. Menson, ed. Competing Values in an Uncertain Environment: Managing in Paradox. Budapest: International Society for the Study of Work & Organizational Values, pp. 725-732.
Dubinsky, J. & Ingram, T., 1984. Correlates of salespeople's ethical conflict: an exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 3(4), pp. 343-353.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A. & Benn, S., 2003. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability: A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future. London: Routledge.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. & Sen, S., 2007. Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Volume 24, pp. 224-241.
Du, S., Swaen, V., Lindgreen, A. & Sen, S., 2013. The roles of leadership styles in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), pp. 155-169.
Dutton, J., Roberts, L. & Bednar, J., 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review, Volume 2, pp. 265-293.
224
Dul, J. and Hak, T., 2008. Case study methodology in business research. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dwyer, L. (2005) Relevance of Triple Bottom Line Reporting to Achievement of Sustainable Tourism: A Scoping Study. Tourism Review International, 9, pp. 79-93
Dwyer, L. and Kim, C. (2003) Destination competitiveness: A model and indicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), pp. 369-413.
Earley, P. & Mosakowski, E., 2000. Creating hyprid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, Volume 43, pp. 26-49.
Eckel, C. & Grossman, P., 2005. Managing Diversity by Creating Team Identity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 58(3), pp. 371-392.
Eden, S., 1996. Environmental Issues and Business: Implications of a Changing Agenda. Chichester: John Wiley.
Edger, C., 2016. Empowerment through education: tour operators promoting gender equality through capacity building in destination communities. Doctoral Thesis: University of Surrey.
Edmondson, A., 2003. Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 4(6), pp. 1419-1452.
Egri, C. & Herman, S., 2000. Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of management Journal, 43(4), pp. 571-604.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. & Graebner, M., 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), pp. 25-32.
El Akremi, A., Gond, J., De Roeck, K. & Igalens, J., 2015. How do Employees Perceive Corporate Responsibility? Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility Scale. Journal of Management, Volume Forthcoming.
El Dief, M. & Font, X., 2010. The determinants of hotels' marketing managers' green marketing behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), pp. 157-174.
Elkington, J., 1999. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.
Ellen, P., Mohr, L. & Webb, D., 2000. Charitable Programmes and the Retailer: Do They Mix?. Journal of Retailing, 76(1), pp. 393-406.
Elmir, R., Schmied, V., Jackson, D. & Wilkes, L., 2011. Interviewing people about potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 19(1), pp. 12-16.
225
Ely, R. & Thomas, D., 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 46, pp. 229-273.
Enright, S., McElrath, R. and Taylor, A., 2016. The Future of Stakeholder Engagement. Research Report, BSR.
Epstein, M., Buhovac, A. & Yuthas, K., 2010. Implementing Sustainability: The Role of Leadership and Organizational Culture. Strategic Finance, 91(10), pp. 41-47.
Evans, W., Davis, W. & Frink, D., 2011. An examination of employee reactions to perceived corporate citizenship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), pp. 938-964.
Faber, M., Jorna, R. & van Engelen, J., 2005. The sustainability of "sustainability" - a study into the conceptual foundations of the notion of 'sustainability'. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 7(1), pp. 1-33.
Farooq, O., Merunka, D. & Valette-Florence, P., 2013. Employees' Response to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Application of a Non Linear Mixture REBUS Approach. In: H. Abdi, et al. eds. New Perspectives in Partial Least Squares and Related Methods. New York, NT: Springer, pp. 257-268.
Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Menunka, D. & Valette-Florence, P., 2014. The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 125, pp. 563-580.
Farooq, O., Rupp, D. & Farooq, M., 2016. The Multiple Pathways through which Internal and External Corporate Social Responisbility Influence Organizational Identification and Multifoci Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Cultural and Social Orientation. The Academy of Management Journal, Volume Advance online publication.
Fennell, D., 2006. Tourism Ethics. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Fenwick, T. & Bierema, L., 2008. Corporate social responsibility: Issues for human resource development professionals. International Journal of Training and Development, Volume 12, pp. 24-35.
Ferreira, P. & Real de Oliveira, E., 2014. Does corporate social responsibility impact on employee engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), pp. 232-247.
Figge, F. & Hahn, T., 2004. Sustainable value added - measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecological Economics, 48(2), pp. 173-187.
Finkelstein, M., Penner, L. & Brannick, M., 2005. Motive, role identity, and pro-social personality as predictors of volunteer activity. Behavior and Personality, Volume 33, pp. 403-418.
Finlay, L., 2002. Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), pp. 209-230.
Fisher, C. & Gitelson, R., 1983. A Meta-Analysis of the Correlates of Role Conflict and Ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), pp. 320-333.
226
Fisher, J., 2003. Surface and deep approaches to business ethics. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(2), pp. 96-101.
Fleming, J. & Asplund, J., 2007. Human Sigma. New York: Gallup Press.
Fombrun, C., Gardberg, M. & Barnett, M., 2000. Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review, 105(1), pp. 85-106.
Font, X. & Cochrane, J., 2005. Integrating sustainability into business: A management guide for responsible tour operations. Paris, UNEP, WTO.
Font, X., Tapper, R., Schwartz, K. & Kornilaki, M., 2008. Sustainable supply chain management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(4), pp. 260-271.
Forsyth, T., 1997. Environmental responsibility and business regulation: The case of sustainable tourism. The Geographical Journal, 163(3), pp. 270-280.
Foster, D. and Jonker, J., 2005. Stakeholder Relationships: The Dialogue of Engagement. Corporate Governance, 5(5), pp. 51-57.
Frank, F., Finnegan, R. & Taylor, C., 2004. The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in teh 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), pp. 12-25.
Franklin, D., 2008. Just good business. Economist, 17th January, pp. 3-22.
Frank, W., Davis, W. & Frink, D., 2011. An examination of employee reactions to perceived corporate citizenship. Journal of APplied Social Psychology, Volume 41, pp. 938-964.
Fraser, G. et al., 2005. Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 78, pp. 114-127.
Frederick, W., 1994. From CSR1 to CSR2. Business and Society, 33(2), pp. 150-164.
Fredrickson, B., 2003. Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In: K. Cameron, J. Dutton & R. Quinn, eds. Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kohler, pp. 163-175.
Freeman, E. & Moutchnik, A., 2013. Stakeholder management and CSR: questions and answers. uwf UmweltWirtschafts Forum, 21(1), pp. 5-9.
Freeman, R.E. and Phillips, R.A., 2002. Stakeholder Theory: A libertarian defence. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(3), pp. 331-349.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pittman-Ballinger: Boston, MA.
Friedman, M., 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York: New York Times.
227
Friedman, M., 2007. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. In: W. Zimmerli, K. Richter & M. Holzinger, eds. Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance. Berlin: Springer, pp. 173-178.
Frooman, J., 1999. Stakeholder influence strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), pp. 191-205.
Gall, M., Gall, J. & Borg, W., 2007. Educational Research: An Introduction. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Gallup, 2011. Majority of American Workers not Engaged in their Jobs, Washington, DC: Gallup Inc..
Gallup, 2014. Gallup Study: Engaged Employees Inspire Company Innovation, Washington, DC: Gallup Inc..
Galpin, T. & Whittington, J., 2012. Sustainability leadership: from strategy to results. Journal of Business Strategy, 33(4), pp. 40-48.
Galpin, T., Whittington, J. & Bell, G., 2015. Is your sustainability strategy sustainable? Creating a culture of sustainability. Corporate Governance, 15(1), pp. 1-17.
Garavan, T., Heraty, N., Rock, A. & Dalton, E., 2010. Conceptualizing the behavioural barriers to CSR and CS in organizations: A typology of HRD interventions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), pp. 587-613.
Garavan, T. & McGuire, D., 2010. Human resource development and society: Human resource development's role in embedding corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), pp. 487-507.
García de Leaniz, P. M., Pérez Ruiz, A. & Rodríguez del Bosque, I., 2012. Analysis of the corporate social responsibility practice in the tourism sector: A case study. Cuadernos de Turism, 30(1), pp. 309-312.
Garriga, E. & Melé, D., 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping and territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2), pp. 51-77.
Gay, C. & D'Aprix, R., 2006. Creating line of sight between employees and strategy. Strategic Communication Management, 11(1), p. 26.
Geller, S., 1991. Safety First. Incentive, 53(1-2), pp. 51-77.
George, W., 2008. Leadership is Authenticity, Not Style. In: J. Gallos, ed. Business Leaders. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 87-94.
Gerring, J., 2017. Case study research: principles and practices. 2nd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gerring, J. and Cojocaru, L., 2016. Case-Selection: A Diversity of Methods and Criteria. Sociological Methods & Research (Forthcoming)
228
Geroy, G., Wright, P. & Jacoby, L., 2000. Toward a Conceptual Framework of Employee Volunteerism: An Aid for the Human Resource Manager. Management Decision, 38(1), pp. 280-286.
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., Wicki, B., 2008. What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), pp. 1465-1474.
Gifford, R., 2011. The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers that Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaption. American Psychologist, 66(4), pp. 290-302.
Giving USA, 2010. The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2009, s.l.: The Center on Philanthorpy at Indiana University.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glavas, A., 2012. Employee Engagement and Sustainability. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 46(1), pp. 13-29.
Glavas, A., 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1), p. 144.
Glavas, A. & Goodwin, L., 2013. Is the Perception of 'Goodness' Good Enough? Exploring the Relationship Between Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Organizational Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), pp. 15-27.
Glavas, A. & Kelley, K., 2014. The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employees. Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 24, pp. 165-202.
Glavas, A. & Piderit, S., 2009. How does doing good matter?. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36(1), pp. 51-70.
Godfrey, P., 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Managemennt Review, Volume 30, pp. 777-798.
Goffman, E., 1961. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Oxford: Bobbs-Merrill.
Gioia, D.A., Patvardhan, S.D., Hamilton, A.L., and Corley, K.G., 2013. Organizational identity formation and change. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), pp. 123-193.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A., 2002. The new leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London, UK: Little Brown.
Gond, J., El Akremi, A., Igalens, J. & Swaen, V., 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility Influence on Employees' Behaviours, Attitudes and Performance: An Integrative Model. Nottingham, UK, Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
Gond, J., Igalens, J., Swaen, V. & El Akremi, A., 2011. The Human Resources Contribution to Responsible Leadership: An Exploration of the CSR-HR Interface. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 98, pp. 115-132.
229
Gonzalez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A. & Lloret, S., 2006. Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles?. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Volume 68, pp. 165-174.
Goodijk, R., 2003. Partnership at corporate level: the meaning of the stakeholder model. Journal of Change Management, Volume 3, pp. 33-38.
Goulding, C.. 2002. Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Graci, S. & Dodds, R., 2008. Why go green? The business case for environmental commitment in the Canadian hotel industry. Anatolia, 19(2), pp. 251-270.
Gray, R., 2002. The Social Accounting Project. Accounting Organizations and Society, 27(7), pp. 687-708.
Grayson, D. & Sanchez-Hernandez, M., 2010. Using Internal Marketing to Engage Employees in Corporate Responsibility. s.l.:Working Paper Series: Doughty Center.
Greening, D. & Turban, D., 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), p. 254.
Greenwood, M., 2001. The Importance of Stakeholders According to Business Leaders. Business and Society Review, 106(1), pp. 29-49.
Greenwood, M., 2008. Employees as Stakeholders. Working Paper Series ISSN 1327-5216.
Greenwood, M., 2013. Ethical analysis of HRM: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), pp. 355-366.
Greenwood, M. and Anderson, E., 2009. 'I used to be an employee but now I am a stakeholder': Implications of labelling employees as stakeholders. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47(2), pp. 186-200.
Greenwood, M. and Freeman, R.E., 2011. Ethics and HRM: The contribution of stakeholder theory. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 30(3), pp. 269-292.
Gregory, K., 1983. Native view paradigms: multiple cultures and culture conflict in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), pp. 359-378.
Grosser, K. & Moon, J., 2005. Gender mainstreaming and corporate social responsibility: Reporting workplace issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4), pp. 327-340.
Gross, R., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: Making the Connection. s.l., White Paper.
Groves, K. & La Rocca, M., 2011. An empirical study of leader ethical values, transformational and transactional leadership, and follower attitudes towards corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1), pp. 511-528.
230
Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y., 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage, pp. 105-117.
Gully, S. et al., 2013. A Mediated Moderation Model of Recruiting Socially and Envrionmentally Responsible Job Applicants. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), pp. 935-973.
Guo, J., Rupp, D., Weiss, H. & Trougakos, J., 2011. Justice in organizations: A person-centric approach. In: S. Gilliland, D. Steiner & D. Skarlicki, eds. Emerging perspectives on organizational justice and ethics. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, pp. 3-32.
Gupta, A. & Thomas, G., 2001. Organizational learning in a high-tech environment: from theory to practice. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 101(9), pp. 502-507.
Gupta, M. & Sharma, K., 1996. Environmental operations manageemnt: An opportunity for improvement. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 37(3), pp. 40-46.
Hahn, T., 2015. Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to the implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Business & Society, 54(1), pp. 9-51.
Hall, C., 2004. Reflexivity and Tourism Research: Situating myself and/with others. In: L. Goodson & J. Phillmore, eds. Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies. London: Taylor & Francis Routledge, pp. 137-155.
Hall, D. & Brown, F., 2006. Ethics, Responsibility, and Sustained Well-being. Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.
Halley, D. & Tuffrey, M., 1999. A Complete Guide to Employee Community Involvement for Employers, Employees, and Community Organizations, London: Corporate Citizenship Company.
Hambrick, D., 1989. Guest editor's introduction: Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), pp. 5-15.
Hambrick, D. & Mason, P., 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its tom managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), pp. 193-206.
Hameed, I., Riaz, Z., Arain, G. & Farooq, O., 2016. How do internal and external CSR affect employees' organizational identification? A perspective from the Group Engagement Model. Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 7, p. 788.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P., 1995. Ethnography Principles in Practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Hansen, S. et al., 2011. Corporate social responsibility and the benefit of employee trust: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 102, pp. 29-45.
Hansen, G.S. and Wernerfelt, B., 1989. Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10(5), pp. 399-411.
Harris, L. & Crane, A., 2002. The greening of organizational culture: Management views on the depths, degree, and diffusion of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), pp.
231
214-234.
Harrison, T., 1985. Communication and participative decision making: An exploratory study. Personnel Psychology, 38(1), pp. 93-116.
Hattersley, G., 2008. Does it really make a difference?. Sunday Times, 2 April, p. 4.
Haugh, H. & Talwar, A., 2010. How do corporations embed sustainability across the organization. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(3), pp. 384-396.
Hautala, T., 2006. The relationship between personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Management Development, 25(8), pp. 777-794.
Hayek, F., 1969. Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. London: Routledge.
Helin, S. & Sandström, J., 2008. Codes, ethics, and cross-cultural differences: Stories from the implementation of a corporate code of ethics in a MNC subsidiary. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), pp. 281-291.
Hemingway, C. & Maclagan, P., 2004. Managers' personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), pp. 33-44.
Herriott, R. & Firestone, W., 1983. Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(2), pp. 14-19.
Hess, D. & Dunfee, T., 2007. The Kasky-Nike Threat to Corporate Social Reporting: Implementing a Standard of Optimal Truthful Disclosure as a Solution. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(3), pp. 455-478.
Hillman, A. & Keim, G., 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What's the bottom line?. Strategic Management Journal, Volume 22, pp. 125-129.
Hobfoll, S., 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), pp. 513-524.
Hobfoll, S., 2001. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), pp. 337-421.
Hochschild, A., 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hogkinson, G.P., 2003. The interface of cognitive and industrial, work and organizational psycholoyg", JOurnal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, pp. 1-25.
Hodson, R., 2004. Work life and social fulfilment: Does social affiliation at work reflect a carrot or a stick?. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2), pp. 221-239.
Hofstede, G., 1998. Identifying organizational subcultures: An empirical approach. Journal of Management, 35(1), pp. 1-12.
232
Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J., 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), pp. 121-140.
Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J, and White, K.M., 1995. A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), pp. 255-269.
Holbeche, L., 2004. Aligning human resources and business strategy. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Holcomb, J., Upchurch, R. & Okumus, F., 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility: What are the top hotel companies reporting?. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitailty Management, 19(6), pp. 461-475.
Hollingworth, D. & Valentine, S., 2011. The relationship bewteen corporate social responsibility and continuous improvement orientation and their effects upon employee attitudes. Reno, NV: Production and Operations Management - Annual Meeting.
Hongyue, M., 2011. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employee Engagement, s.l.: University of Southern California.
Hornsey, M.J. and Hogg, M.A., 2000. Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), pp. 242-256.
Hornsey, M.J. and Hogg, M.A., 2000. Intergroup Similarity and Subgroup Relations: Some Implications for Assimilation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), pp. 948-958.
Horrigan, B., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century: Debates, Models, and Practices Across Government, Law and Business. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar Publishing.
Houghton, S., Gabel, J. & Williams, D., 2009. Connecting the two faces of CSR: Does employee volunteerism improve compliance?. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 87, pp. 477-494.
Howard-Grenville, J., 2006. Inside the 'black box': How organizational culture and subcultures inform interpretations and actions on environmental issues. Organization and Environment, 19(1), pp. 46-73.
Howard, P. & Allen, P., 2010. Beyond Organics and Fair Trade? An analysis of Ecolabel Preferences in the United States. Rural Sociology, 75(2), pp. 244-269.
Howell, J. & Avolio, B., 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 78, pp. 891-902.
Huczynski, A. & Buchanan, D., 2007. Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. 6th ed. Portland, OR: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Humphreys, M. and Brown, A.D., 2002. Narratives of organizational identity and identification: a case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23(3), pp. 421-447.
233
Huntrods, D., 2013. Organic Food Trends. [Online] Available at: www.agmrc.org/markets__industries/food/organic-food-trends-profile/ [Accessed 25 September 2014].
Im, S., Chung, Y.W., and Yang, J.Y., 2017. Employees’ Participation in Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Person-CSR Fit. Sustainability, 9(28), pp. 1-14.
Inoue, Y. & Lee, S., 2011. Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Management, 31(1), pp. 790-804.
Inyang, B., Awa, H. & Enuoh, R., 2011. CSR-HRM nexus: Defining the role of engagement of the human resource professionals. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(5), pp. 118-126.
Irrmann, O., 2002. Organizational Culture and Identity Strategies in International Management: An interdisciplinary review. 28th EIBA Conference: Athens.
Jackson, B., 2005. The enduring romance of leadership studies. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), pp. 1311-1324.
Jahdi, K. & Acikdilli, G., 2009. Marketing communications and corporate social responsibility (CSR): Marriage of convenience or shotgun wedding?. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 88, pp. 103-113.
Jamali, D., 2006. Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), pp. 809-821.
Jamali, D., 2008. Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, pp. 213-231.
Jamali, D., El Dirani, A. & Harwood, I., 2015. Exploring human resource management roles in corporate social responsibility: The CSR-HRM co-creation model. Business Ethics, 24(2), pp. 125-143.
Janssen, O., 2004. The barrier effect of conflict with superiors in the relationship between employee empowerment and organizational commitment. Work & Stress, 18(1), pp. 56-65.
Jenkins, H., 2006. Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), pp. 241-256.
Jenkin, T., McShane, L. & Webster, J., 2011. Green information technologies and systems: Employees perceptions' of organizational practices. Business and Society, Volume 50, pp. 266-314.
Jennings, G., 2010. Tourism Research. Milton: John Wiley.
Jermier, J., Slocum, J., Fry, L. & Gains, J., 1991. Organizational subcultures in soft bureaucracy: resistance behind the myth and facade of an official culture. Organizational Science, 2(2), pp. 170-194.
Jiang, R. & Bansal, P., 2003. Seeing the need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), pp. 1047-1067.
234
Johnson, D., 2016. A Qualitative Analysis of the Drivers of Disengagement across Four Generations of U.S. Employees. Prescott Valley, AZ: Northcentral University.
Joker, J. & de Witte, M., 2006. The Challenge of Organizing and Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility. Baskingstoke: Palgrave.
Jones, D., 2010. Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), pp. 857-878.
Jones, D., Willness, C. & Madey, S., 2014b. Why are Job Seekers Attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57, pp. 383-404.
Jones, M. & Haigh, M., 2007. The Transnational Corporation and New Corporate Citizenship Theory. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 27(1), pp. 51-69.
Jones, P., Hillier, D. & Comfort, D., 2014a. Sustainability in the global hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(1), pp. 5-17.
Judge, T. & Bono, J., 2000. Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), pp. 751-765.
Jung, D., Wu, A. & Chow, C., 2008. Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs' transformational leadership in firm innovation. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), pp. 582-594.
Kahn, W., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), pp. 692-724.
Kakabadse, A. & Kakabadse, N., 1999. Essence of Leadership. London: International Thomson.
Kakabadse, N., Kakabadse, A. & Lee-Davis, L., 2007. CSR Leaders Road Map. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 9(1), pp. 50-57.
Kaler, J. (2006) Evaluating stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, pp. 249-268.
Kaler, J. (2009) An optimally viable version of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics. 86, pp. 297-312.
Kang, K., Lee, S. & Huh, C., 2010. Impacts of positive and negative corporate social responsibility activities on company performance in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), pp. 72-82.
Kaptein, M., 2004. Business Codes of Multinational Firms: What Do They Say. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 50, pp. 13-31.
Karatepe, O. & Olugbade, O., 2009. The effects of job and personal resources on hotel employees' work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), pp. 504-512.
235
Karnani, A., 2010. The Case against Corporate Social Responsibility. New York: The Wall Street Journal.
Kasim, A., 2004. BESR in the hotel sector: A look at tourists' propensity towards environmentally and socially friendly hotel attributes in Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 5(2), pp. 61-83.
Kasim, A., 2007. Corporate environmentalism in the hotel sectors: Evidence of drivers and barriers in Penang, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), pp. 680-699.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R., 1966. The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Katzenbach, J., 2003. Why pride matters more than money. New York, NY: Random House.
Kelliher, F., 2011. Interpretivism and the Pursuit of Research Legitimisation: An Integrated Approach to a Single Case Design. In: A. Bryant, ed. Leading Issues in Business Research Methods. Reading: Academic Publishing International, pp. 45-62.
Kemper, A. and Martin, R.L. (2011) After the Fall: The Global Financial Crisis as a Test of Corporate Social Responsibility Theories. European Management Review, 7, pp. 229-239.
Kermani, F., 2006. Why corporate social responsibility makes sense. Applied Clinical Trials, 15(5), pp. 36-28.
Kernis, M., 2003. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, Volume 14, pp. 1-26.
Kernis, M. & Goldman, B., 2006. A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticy: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 38, pp. 283-357.
Ketola, T., 2006. From CR-Psychopaths to responsible corporations: Waking up the inner sleeping beauty of companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(1), pp. 98-107.
Khairat, G. & Maher, A., 2012. Integrating Sustainability into Tour Operator Business: An Innovative Approach in Sustainable Tourism. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 7(1), pp. 213-233.
Khallash, S. & Kruse, M., 2012. The future of work and work-life balance 2025. Futures, Volume 44, pp. 678-686.
Kim, H., Lee, M., Lee, H. & Kim, N., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee-Company Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), pp. 557-569.
King, A. & Lenox, M., 2000. Industry self-regulation without sancations: The chemical industry's responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), pp. 698-716.
King, J., 2002. Destination marketing organisations - connecting the experience rather than promoting the place. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(2), pp. 105-108.
236
Kirkman, B. et al., 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), pp. 744-764.
Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J., 2006. Evaluating training programs: The four levels. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Knight, W., 2003. Influences on Participation in a University Faculty and Staff Annual Giving Campaign. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 4(3), pp. 221-232.
Knirsch, F., 2005. Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility: Metrics for Sustainable Performance. European Management Journal, 23(6), pp. 628-647.
Kohn, A., 1999. Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, prise, and other bribes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Kolstad, I., 2007. Why firms should not always maximize profits. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), pp. 137-145.
Kontakos, A., 2007. Employee Engagement and Fairness in the Workplace. White Paper: Centre for Advanced Human Resource Studies.
Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C. & Swain, S., 2014. Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), pp. 20-37.
Korte, R.F., 2007. A review of social identity theory with implications for training and development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(3), pp. 166-180.
Kottasz, R., 2004. Differences in the Donor Behaviour of Characteristics of Young Affluent Males and Females: Empirical Evidence from Britain. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 15(2), pp. 181-203.
Kotter, J., 1990. What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 5(3), pp. 3-11.
Koys, D. & de Cotiis, T., 1991. Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human Relations, Volume 44, pp. 265-285.
Kress, N., 2005. Engaging your employees through the power of communication. Workspan, 48(5), pp. 26-32.
Kristof, A., 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurments, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), pp. 1-49.
Kroth, M. & Keeler, C., 2009. Caring as a managerial strategy. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), pp. 506-531.
Kruse, K., 2012. Employee Engagement 2.0: How to motivate your team for high performance (A real-world guide for busy managers), Richboro, PA: The Kruse Group.
237
Kucukusta, D., Mak, A. & Chan, X., 2013. Corporate social responsibility practices in four and five-star hotels: Perspectives from Hong Kong visitors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Volume 34, pp. 19-30.
Kuhnert, K. & Lewis, P., 1987. Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive development analysis. Academy of Management Review, Volume 12, pp. 648-657.
Kular, S. et al., 2008. Employee Engagement: A Literature Review. Kingston Business School: Working Paper Number 9.
Kumar, S. and Tiwari, R., 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights into Contemporary Research. The IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 10(1), pp. 22-46.
Laabs, J., 1992. The Greening of HR. Personnel Journal, 71(8), pp. 60-71.
Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J. & King, C., 2014. Empowering employee sustainability: Perceived organisational support toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), pp. 207-220.
Lam, S., Chen, X. & Schaubroeck, J., 2002. Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), pp. 905-914.
Larson, B. et al., 2008. Linking Cause-Related Marketing to Sales Force Responses and Performance in a Direct Selling Context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing and Science, 36(2), pp. 271-277.
Laszlo, C., 2008. Sustainable Value: How the World's Leading Companies are Doing Well by Doing Good. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Laszlo, C. & Zhexembayeva, N., 2011. Embedded Sustainability: The Next Big Competitive Advantage. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E., 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lawler, E., 1993. Creating the high involvement organization. In: J. Galbraith & E. Lawler, eds. Organizing for the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 172-193.
Lawson, D., 2009. Organic Food is Just a Tax on the Gullible. Sunday Times, 9 August, p. 16.
LeCompte, M., 2000. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Theory into Practice, 39(3), pp. 146-154.
Leech, N. & Onwuegbuzie, A., 2007. An Array of Qualitative Data Analysis Tools: A Call for Data Analysis Triangulation. School of Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), pp. 557-584.
Lee, E., Park, S. & Lee, H., 2013. Employee perception of CSR activities: It's antecedents and consequneces. Journal of Business Research, Volume 66, pp. 1716-1724.
Lee, M., 2008. A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: It's evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), pp. 53-73.
Lee, R. & Renzetti, C., 1990. The problem of researching sensitive topics. American Behavioral Scientist, 33(5), pp. 510-528.
238
Lee, S. & Heo, C., 2009. Corporate social responsibility and customer satisfaction among US publicly traded hotels and restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), pp. 635-637.
Lee, S. & Park, S., 2009. Do socially responsible activities help hotels and casinos achieve their financial goals?. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Volume 28, pp. 105-112.
Leitch, J. et al., 1995. Strategies for involving employees. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 18(5), pp. 68-74.
Leiter, M., Laschinger, H., Day, A. & Gilin-Oore, D., 2009. The role of civility and incivility in a model of trust and enagement. San Juan, APA/NIOSH Work, Stress & Health Conference.
Leiter, M. & Maslach, C., 1999. Six areas of work-life: A model of the organizational context of burnout. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, Volume 21, pp. 472-489.
Leiter, M. & Maslach, C., 2010. Building engagement: The design and evaluation of interventions. In: A. Bakker & M. Leiter, eds. Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Sussex: Psychology Press, p. 164.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1990. A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(3), pp. 248-266.
Leslie, L., Snyder, M. & Glomb, T., 2013. Who gives? Multilevel effects of gender and ethnicity on workplace charitable giving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), pp. 49-62.
Lewis, M., 2000. Exploring Paradox: Towards a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), pp. 760-776.
Lichman, M., 2013. Making meaning from your data. In: M. Lichman, ed. Qualitative Research in Education: A User's Guide. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 241-268.
Lii, Y. & Lee, M., 2012. Doing Right Leads to Doing Well: When the Type of CSR and Reputation Interact to Affect Consumer Evaluations of the Firm. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 105, pp. 69-81.
Lindgreen, A. & Swaen, V., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp. 1-7.
Linnenluecke, M. & Griffiths, A., 2010. Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(1), pp. 367-366.
Linnenluecke, M., Russell, S. & Griffiths, A., 2007. Subcultures and Sustainability Practices: The Impact on Understanding Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and Environment, 18(7), pp. 432-452.
List, J., 2011. The Market for Charitable Giving. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2), pp. 157-180.
Liu, G., Liston-Heyes, C. & Wai-Wai, K., 2010. Employee Participation in Cause-Related Marketing Strategies: A Study of Management Perceptions from British Consumer Services Industries. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), pp. 195-210.
239
Llorens, S., Bakker, A., Schaufeli, W. & Salanova, M., 2006. Testing the robustness of the jobs demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(3), pp. 378-391.
Lloyd-Walker, B. & Walker, D., 2011. Authentic leadership for 21st century project delivery. International Journal of Project Management, Volume 29, pp. 383-395.
Lockwood, N., 2007. Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR's Strategic Role. Society for Human Resource Management, Volume 1, pp. 1-12.
Logan, D., 2002. Employee in the Community: A Global Force for Good, London: Corporate Citizenship Company and the Centre for the Study of Philanthropy.
Longhurst, R., 2010. Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In: N. Clifford, S. French & G. Valentine, eds. Key Methods in Geography. London: Sage, pp. 103-116.
Lorenzo-Molo, C. & Udani, Z., 2013. Bringing back the essence of the "S" and "R" to CSR: Understanding the limitations of the merchant trade and the white man's burden. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), pp. 123-136.
Lovia Boateng, S., 2014. Essays from a Marketing PhD: Year One. Accra: PearlRichards Foundation.
Lowe, K., Kroeck, K. & Sivasubramaniam, N., 1996. Effectiveness of correlates of transformational & transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, Volume 7, pp. 385-425.
Luthans, F. & Avolio, B., 2003. Authentic leadership development. In: K. Cameron, J. Dutton & R. Quinn, eds. Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 241-258.
Luthans, F. & Peterson, S., 2002. Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal of Management Development, Volume 21, pp. 376-387.
Macey, W. & Schneider, B., 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), pp. 3-30.
Mackey, A., Mackey, T. & Barney, J., 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance: Investor Preferences and Corporate Strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), pp. 817-835.
Maclagan, P., 2002. Reflections on the Integration of Ethics Teaching into a British Undergraduate Management Degree Programme. Teaching Business Ethics, 6(3), pp. 297-318.
Maclagen, P., 1999. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Participative Process. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1), pp. 43-49.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E., 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, pp. 103–123.
Mahalingam, C., 2011. Engaged Employees: A Key Organization Capability. NHRD Network Journal, 4(3), pp. 32-37.
240
Maignan, I. F. O., 2001. Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument. European Journal of Marketing, Volume 35, pp. pp. 457-484.
Maio, E., 2003. Managing brand in the new stakeholder environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2-3), pp. 235-246.
Malterud, K., 2001. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 368(9280), pp. 483-488.
Mamantov, C., 2009. The engine behind employee communication. Communication World, 26(5), pp. 33--35.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. & Swaen, V., 2009. Designing and Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility: An Integrative Framework Grounded in Theory and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), pp. 71-89.
Marin, L. & Ruiz, S., 2007. 'I need you too!' Corporate identity attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), pp. 245-260.
Marques, J., 2006. Leadership: Emotional intelligence, passion and... what else?. Journal of Management Development, 26(7), pp. 644-651.
Marquis, C., Thomason, B. & Tydlaska, J., 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement. Harvard Business School Course Overview Note, pp. 410-438.
Martin, C. & Tulgan, B., 2006. Managing the generation mix: From urgency to opportunity. 2nd ed. Amhurst, MA: HRD Press.
Martin, J., 2002. Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M., 1997. The truth about burnout. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M., 2008. Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 93, pp. 498-512.
Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W. & Leiter, M., 2001. Job Burnout. Annual Reviwe of Psychology, Volume 52, pp. 397-422.
Mason, P., 2010. Tourism impacts, planning, and management. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Massachusetts Business Roundtable, 2009. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Recruitment and Retention, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Business Roundtable.
Mathew, M. & Gupta, K., 2015. Transformational Leadership: Emotional Intelligence. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 12(2), p. 75.
Matten, D. & Crane, A., 2005. Corporate Citizenship: Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), pp. 166-179.
241
Matten, D. & Moon, J., 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility Education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), pp. 323-337.
Mauno, S., Pykko, M. & Hakanen, J., 2005. The prevalence and antecedents of work engagement in three different organisations. Psykologia, 40(1), pp. 16-30.
Mayer, D. et al., 2009. How long does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 108, pp. 1-13.
McColl-Kennedy, J. & Anderson, R., 2002. Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), pp. 545-559.
McCosker, H., Barnard, A. & Gerber, R., 2001. Undertaking Sensitive Research: Issues and Strategies for Meeting the Safety Needs of All Participants. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2(1).
McDonald, G. & Nijhof, A., 1999. Beyond Codes of Ethics: An Integrated Framework for Stimulating Morally Responsible Behaviour in Organisations. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20(3), pp. 133-146.
McEwen, C. & Schmidt, J., 2007. Leadership and the corporate sustainability challenge; mindsets in action, Roswell, GA: Avastone Consulting.
McGehee, N., Wattanakamolchai, S., Perdue, R. & Calvet, E., 2009. Corproate social responsibility within the US lodging industry: An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33(3), pp. 417-437.
McShane, L. & Cunningham, P., 2012. To thine own self be true? Employees' judgments of the authenticity of their organization's corporate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 108, pp. 81-100.
McVea, J.F. and Freeman, R.E., 2005. A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management: How focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, pp. 57-69.
McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), pp. 117-127.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. & Wright, P., 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), pp. 1-18.
Melé, D. (2009) Corporate Social Responsibility Theories in Crane, A., Matten, D., McWIlliams, A., Moon, J. and Siegel, D.S. The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 50-76
Mello, J., 2011. Strategic Human Resource Management. Cincinnati, OH: South Western College Publishers.
Metcalf, L. & Benn, S., 2013. Leadership for Sustainability: An evolution of leadership ability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), pp. 369-384.
242
Mey, M., Werner, A. & Theron, A., 2014. The influence of perceptions of organizational trust and fairness on employee citizenship. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12(3), pp. 99-105.
Miles, M. & Huberman, M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
Miles, M., Munilla, L. & Darroch, J., 2006. The role of strategic conversation with stakeholders in the formation of corporate social responsibility strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), pp. 195-205.
Miles, S., 2012. Stakeholder: Essentially contested or just confused?. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), pp. 285-298
Miller, G., 2001. Corporate responsibility in the UK tourism industry. Tourism Management, 22(6), pp. 589-598.
Miller, P., 1991. Strategic Human Resource Management: An Assessment of Progress. Human Resource Management Journal, 1(4), pp. 23-39.
Miller, P. & Skidmore, P., 2004. Disorganisation: Why future organisations must 'loosen up'. London, UK: Demos.
Miller, R., 2003. Sampling, snowball: Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations. In: The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts. London: Sage Publications, pp. 274-280.
Milliken, F., Morrison, E. & Hewlin, P., 2003. An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, Volume 40, pp. 1453-1476.
Milliken, F., Schipani, C., Bishara, N. & Prado, A., 2015. Linking Workplace Practice to Community Engagement: The Case for Encouraging Employee Voice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(4), pp. 405-421.
Milton, L. & Westphal, J., 2005. Identity Confirmation Networks and Cooperation in Work Groups. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), pp. 191-212.
Mirvis, P., 2012. Employee Engagement in CSR: Transactional, Relational, and Developmental Approaches. California Management Review, 54(4), pp. 93-117.
Mitchell, R., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 853-886.
Mnguni, P., 2010. Anxiety and defense in sustainability. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 15(2), pp. 117-135.
Mohin, T., 2012. The Top 10 Trends in CSR for 2012. Frobes, 18 January.
Mohrman, S., Lawler, E. & Ledford, G., 1996. Do Employee Involvement and TQM Programmemes Work?. Journal of Quality and Participation, 19(1), pp. 6-10.
243
Montiel, I., 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Sustainability. Organization & Environment, 15(5), pp. 245-269.
Moon, J., 2007. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 15(5), pp. 296-306.
Morgan, G. (1980) Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), pp. 605-622.
Morgeson, F., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. & Siegel, D., 2013. Extending Corporate Social Responsibility Research to the Human Research Management and Organizational Behavior Domains: A Look to the Future. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), pp. 805-824.
Morrison, E. & Milliken, F., 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, Volume 25, pp. 706-731.
Morrison, E., See, K. & Pan, C., 2015. An Approach-Inhibition Model of Employee Silence: The Joint Effects of Personal Sense of Power and Target Openness. Personnel Psychology, 68(3), pp. 547-580.
Morse, J., 1991. Strategies for sampling. In: Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 127-145.
Morsing, M. & Oswald, D., 2009. Sustainable leadership: management control systems and organizational culture in Novo Nordisk A/S. Corporate Governance, 9(1), pp. 83-99.
Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., Spiess, S. & Lin-Hi, N., 2012. The effects of corporate social responsibility on employees' affective commitment: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 97, pp. 1186-1200.
Muller, A., 2007. How to make the clean development mechanism sustainable - The potential of rent extraction. Energy Policy, 35(6), pp. 3203-3212.
Murphy, P., 1989. Creating ethical corporate structure. Sloan Management Review, Volume 30, pp. 81-87.
Muthuri, J., Matten, D. & Moon, J., 2009. Employee Volunteering and Social Capital: Contributions to Corporate Social Responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20(1), pp. 75-89.
Muthuri, J., Moon, J. & Matten, D., 2006. Employee Volunteering and the Creation of Social Capital. ICCSR Research Paper Series, Volume No. 34.
Nan, X. & Heo, K., 2007. Consumer response to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Journal of Advertising, Volume 36, pp. 63-74.
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2003. Giving at Work, s.l.: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Nijhof, A. et al., 2006. Learning to be Responsible: Developing Competences for Organization-Wide CSR. In: J. Joker & M. de Witte, eds. The Challenge of Organizing and Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility. Baskingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 148-172.
244
Oberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. & Murphy, P., 2013. CSR Practices and Consumer Perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), pp. 1839-1851.
Okoye, A., 2009. Theorizing Corporate Social Responsibility as an Essentially Contested Concept: Is a Definition Necessary?. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), pp. 613-627.
Okunade, A. & Berl, R., 1997. Determinants of charitable giving of business school alumni. Research in Higher Education, Volume 38, pp. 201-214.
Omran, M. & Ramdhony, D., 2015. Theoretical perspectives on corporate social responsibility disclosure: A critical review. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 5(2), pp. 38-55.
O'Neal, S. & Gebauer, J., 2006. Talen Management in the 21st Century: Attracting, Retaining and Engaging Employees of Choice. Word at Work Journal, 15(1), pp. 1-12.
Onkila, T., 2015. Pride or Embarrassment? Employees' Emotions and Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(4), pp. 222-236.
Oreg, S. & Berson, Y., 2011. Leadership and Employees' Reactions to Change: The Role of Leaders' Personal Attributes and Transfomational Leadership Style. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), pp. 627-659.
O'Reilly, K., 2009. Key concepts in ethnography. London: Sage.
Organ, D. & Ryan, K., 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), pp. 775-802.
Orlikowski, W., 1993. CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development. Management Information System Quarterly, 17(3), pp. 309–340.
Orlitzky, M., 2005. Social responsibility and financial performance: Trade-off or virtuous circle?. University of Auckland Business Review, 7(1), pp. 37-43.
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. & Waldman, D., 2011. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability. Business & Society, 50(1), pp. 6-27.
Osili, U., Kort, D. & Raghavan, S., 2011. Charitable giving inside and outside the workplace: the role of individual and firm characteristics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(4), pp. 393-408.
Owen, D., Swift, T. & Hunt, K., 2001. Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in social and ethical accounting, auditing, and reportin. Accounting Forum, 45(3), pp. 384-410.
Pajo, K. & Lee, L., 2011. Corporate-sponsored volunteering: A work design perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 99, pp. 467-482.
Palazzo, B., 2002. U.S.-American and German Business Ethics: An Intercultural Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(3), pp. 195-216.
245
Panagopoulos, N. R. A. a. V. P., 2016. I think they think we are good citizens: Meta-perceptions as antecedents of employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), pp. pp. 2781-2790.
Patton, K. & Daley, D., 1998. Gainsharing in Zebulon: What do workers want?. Public Personnel Management, 27(1), pp. 117-131.
Patton, M., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Patton, M., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. & Conger, J., 2003. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pech, R. & Slade, B., 2006. Employee disengagement: Is there evidence of a growing problem?. Handbook of Business Strategy, 7(1), pp. 21-25.
Pedersen, E. & Neergaard, P., 2008. From periphery to center: How CSR is integrated in mainstream performance management frameworks. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(1), pp. 4-12.
Pelham, A.M. and Wilson, D.T., 1995. A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), pp. 27-43.
Peloza, J. & Hassay, D., 2006. Intra-organizational Volunteerism: Good Soldiers, Good Deeds, Good Politics. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 64, pp. 357-379.
Peloza, J., Hudson, S. & Hassay, D., 2009. The Marketing of Employee Volunteering. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), pp. 371-386.
Perez-Batres, L., Doh, J., Miller, V. & Pisani, M., 2012. Stakeholder Pressures as Determinants of CSR Strategic Choice: Why do Firms Choose Symbolic Versus Substantive Self-Regulatory Codes of Conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 110, pp. 157-172.
Pernecky, T. & Jamal, T., 2010. Phenomenology in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), pp. 1055-1075.
Peterson, D., 2003. Benefits of Participation in Corporate Volunteer Programs: Employees' Perceptions. Personnel Review, 33(6), pp. 615-627.
Peterson, D., 2004. Recruitment Strategies for Encouraging Participation in Corporate Volunteer Programs. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(4), pp. 371-386.
Pettigrew, A. M., 1990. Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice. Organization & Science, 1(3), pp. 267–292.
Pettigrew, S., 2000. Ethnography and grounded theory: A happy marriage?. Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 27, pp. 256-260.
246
Pfeffer, J., 1995. Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective management of people. The Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), pp. 55-69.
Phillips, R., 2003. Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), pp. 25-41.
Phillips, R., Freeman, E., and Wicks, C., 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), pp. 479-502.
Phillimore, J. & Goodson, L., 2004. Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies, and Methodologies. London, UK: Routledge.
Piercy, N. & Lane, N., 2009. Corporate social responsibility: Impact on strategic marketing and customer value. The Marketing Review, 9(4), pp. 335-360.
Plakhotnik, M., Rocco, T. & Roberts, N., 2011. Increasing retetntion and success of first-time managers: A model of three integral process for the transition to management. Human Resource Development Review, 10(1), pp. 26-45.
Polzer, J., Milton, L. & Swann, W., 2002. Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 47, pp. 296-324.
Porter, M., 2006. Mapping social opportunities. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), pp. 86-87.
Porter, M. & Kramer, M., 2006. Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), pp. 78-92.
Post, J. & Altman, B., 1994. Managing the environmental change process: Barriers and opportunities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4), pp. 64-81.
Post, J., Preston, L.E, and Sachs, S., 2002. Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45(1), pp. 6-28.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. & Novak, R., 2005. Individuality and Social Influence in Groups: Inductive and Deductive Routes to Group Identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), pp. 747-763.
Post, S., 2005. Altruism, happiness, and health: It's good to be good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Volume 12, pp. 66-77.
Powell, S., 2011. The nexus between ethical corporate marketing, ethical corporate identity, and corporate social responsibility: An internal organisational perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10), pp. 1365-1379.
Pradhan, R., Jena, L. & Kumari, I., 2016. Effect of Work-Life Balance on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Role of Organizational Commitment. Global Business Review, 17(3), pp. 15-29.
Prahalad, C. & Doz, Y., 1987. The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global vision. New York, NY: Free Press.
247
Pratt, M., 1998. To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In: D. Whetten & P. Godfrey, eds. Identity in Organizations: Developing theory through conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 171-207.
Pravadas, S. & Mishra, P., 2014. Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement: A Critical Analysis of Literature Review. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 3(2), pp. 73-86.
Price, T., 2003. The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), pp. 67-81.
Provis, C.,1996. Unitarism, pluralism, interests and values. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 34(4), pp. 473-495.
Putnam, R., 1995. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), pp. 65-78.
Putnam, R., 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Quirk, D., 1998. Corporate Volunteering: The Potential and the Way Forward, Wellington: Wellington Volunteer Center.
Ramus, C., 2002. Encouraging innovative environmental actions: what companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, Volume 37, pp. 151-164.
Ramus, C. & Killmer, A., 2007. Corporate greening through prosocial extra-role behaviours: A conceptual framework for employee motivation. Business Strategy and the Environment, Volume 16, pp. 554-570.
Ramus, C. & Steger, U., 2000. The roles of supervisory support behaviours and environmental policy in employee "ecoinitiatives" at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, Volume 43, pp. 605-626.
Randall, D. & Fernandes, M., 1991. The Social Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 10, pp. 805-817.
Rawal, N., 2006. Complement. In: G. Laurent & S. Shapiro, eds. Encyclopedia of Respiratory Medicine. London: Elsevier, pp. 546-552.
Ren, C. & Guo, C., 2011. Middle managers' strategic role in the corproate entrepreneurial process: attention-based effects. Journal of Management, 37(6), pp. 1586-1610.
Renwick, D., Redman, T. & Maguire, S., 2012. Green human resource management: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), pp. 1-14.
Rich, B., Lepine, J. & Crawford, E., 2010. Job Engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Review, Volume 53, pp. 617-635.
248
Richter, J. & Jenkins, R., 2003. Holding corporations accountable: Corporate conduct, international codes and citizen action. Global Social Policy, 3(1), pp. 108-110.
Riley, P., 1983. A structurationist account of political culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), pp. 414-437.
Rimando, M. et al., 2015. Data Collection Challenges and Recommendations for Early Career Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 20(12), pp. 2025-2036.
Riordan, C., Vandenberg, R. & Richardson, H., 2005. Employee involvement and organizational effectiveness: An organizational system perspective. Human Resource Management, Volume 44, pp. 471-488.
Rivera, L., 2012. Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), pp. 999-1022.
Robertson, C. & Fadil, P., 1998. Developing Corporate Codes of Ethics in Multinational Firms: Bhopal Revisited. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(4).
Robin, D. & Reidenbach, R., 1987. Social Responsibility, Ethics and Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application. Journal of Marketing, Volume 51, pp. 44-58.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. & Hayday, S., 2004. The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
Robinson, M., Kleffner, A., Bertels, S. & C., S., 2008. The value of a reputation for corporate social responsibility: empirical evidence. Kananaskis Village, Northern Finance Association Conference.
Robson, C., 2002. Real World Research. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Robtertson, J. & Barling, J., 2013. Greening organizations through leaders' influence on employees' pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), pp. 176-194.
Rodrigo, P. & Arenas, D., 2008. Do Employees Care about CSR Programs? A Typology of Employees According to their Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), pp. 265-283.
Romagnano, L., 1991. Managing the dilemmas of change: A case study of two ninth grade general mathematics teachers. Boulder: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado.
Romney-Alexander, D., 2002. Payroll giving in the UK: Donor incentives and influences on giving behavior. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(1), pp. 84-92.
Rondinelli, D. & Berry, M., 2000. Environmental citizenship in multinational corporations: social responsibility and sustainable development. European Management Journal, 18(1), pp. 70-84.
Rowe, M., 2006. Reputation, Relationships and Risk: A CSR Primer for Ethics Officers. Business and Society Review, 111(4), pp. 441-455.
Rowley, T.I. and Modoveanu, M., 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest – and identity – based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), pp. 204-
249
219.
Roza, L., 2016. Employee engagement in corporate social responsibility. Doctoral Thesis: University of Rotterdam.
Rupp, D., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, V. & Williams, C., 2006. Employee Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Organisational Justice Framework. Organizational Behavior, 27(4), pp. 537-543.
Rupp, D. & Mallory, D., 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological, Person-Centric, and Progressing. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, Volume 2, pp. 211-236.
Rupp, D. et al., 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: The Role of Self-Autonomy and Individualism. Orlando, FL, Academy of Management Annual Proceedings.
Rupp, D., Shao, R., Thornton, M. & Skarlicki, D., 2013c. Applicants and employees reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, Volume 66, pp. 895-933.
Rupp, D., Skarlicki, D. & Shao, R., 2013a. The psychology of corproate social responsibility and humanitarian work: a person-centric perspective. Industrial Organizational Pscyhology, 6, pp. 361-368.
Rupp, D., Williams, C. & Aguilera, R., 2011. Increasing corporate social responsibility through stakeholdre value internalization (and the catalyzing effect of new governance): An application of organizational justice, self-determination, and social influence theories.. In: M. Schminke, ed. Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality. New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 71-90.
Russo, A. and Tencati, A., 2009. Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, pp. 339-353.
Ryan, C., 2015. Trends in hospitality management research: A personal reflection. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(30), pp. 340-361.
Ryan, K. & Oestreich, D., 1998. Driving fear out of the workplace. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rynes, S., 1991. Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: a call for new research directions. In: M. Dunnette & L. Hough, eds. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consult Psychology Press, pp. 399-444.
Sackman, S., 1992. Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of Organizational Knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), pp. 14-161.
Saks, A., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), pp. 600-619.
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. & Steger, U., 2005. The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability: Literature Review and Options. European Management Journal, 23(1), pp. 27-36.
250
Samanta, I., Kyriazopoulos, P. and Pantelidis, P., 2013. Exploring the Impact of CSR on Employee's Perceptions of their Company and their Working Behavior, paper presented at International Conference on Technology and Business Management, March 18-20. pp. 826-32.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2009. Research methods for business students. 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, H., 2012. Research methods for business students. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A. & Salanova, M., 2006. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurment, Volume 20, pp. 1-16.
Schaufeli, W. & Salanova, M., 2007. Work engagement: an emerging psychological concept and its implications for organisations. In: S. Gilliland, S. Steiner & D. Skarlicki, eds. Managing Social and Ethical Issues in Organizations. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, pp. 135-177.
Schaufeli, W. & Salanova, M., 2008. Enhancing work engagement through the management of human resources. In: K. Naswall, M. Sverke & J. Hellgren, eds. The Individual in the Changing Working Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 380-402.
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. & Bakker, A., 2002. The measurment of engagement and burnout: a two simple confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), pp. 71-92.
Schein, E., 1983. The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, Volume 12, pp. 13-28.
Schein, E., 1996. Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 41, pp. 229-240.
Schein, E., 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Schervish, P. & Havens, J., 1995. Do the poor pay more: is the U-shaped curve correct?. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Volume 24, pp. 79-90.
Schervish, P. & Havens, J., 1997. Social Participation and Charitable Giving: A Multivariate Analysis. International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 8(3), pp. 235-260.
Schneider, B., 1987. The People Make the Place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), pp. 437-453.
Schuyt, T., Bekkers, R., and Gouwenberg, B.M. (eds.) (2013) GIving in the Netherlands: Donations, Bequests, Sponsoring, and Volunteering. Amsterdam: Reed Business.
Seijts, G. & Crim, D., 2006. What engages employees the most or, the Ten C's of employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal Online, Volume Mar/Apr, pp. 1-5.
Seltzer, J., Numerof, R. & Bass, B., 1989. Transformational leadership: Is it a source of more burnout?. Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 12(2), pp. 174-185.
251
Sendhut, H., 1991. Managing in a multicultural society: The Malaysian Experience. Malaysian Management Review, 26(1), pp. 61-69.
Sen, S. & Bhattacharya, B., 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), pp. 225-243.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. & Korschun, D., 2006. The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening Multiple Stakeholder Relationships: A Field Experiement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), pp. 158-166.
Shamir, B. & Eilam, G., 2005. "What's your story?": A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), pp. 395-417.
Shankar, T. & Bhatnagar, J., 2010. Work Life Balance, Employee Engagement, Emotional Consonance/Dissonance & Turnover Intention. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(1), pp. 74-87.
Sharp, Z. & Zaidman, N., 2009. Strategization of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 93, pp. 51-71.
Shaw, D., McMaster, R. & Newholm, T., 2016. Care and Commitment in Ethical Consumption: An Exploration of the 'Attitude-Behaviour' Gap. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 136, pp. 251-265.
Sheehy, B., 2015. Defining CSR: Problems and Solutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(3), pp. 625-648.
Sheldon, P. & Park, S., 2010. An Exploratory Study of Corporate Social Responsibility in the U.S. Travel Industry. Journal of Travel Research, 50(4), pp. 392-407.
Shen, J. & Benson, J., 2014. When CSR is a social norm how socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behavior. Journal of Management, 42(6), pp. 1723-1746.
Shin, I., Hur, W. & Kang, S., 2016. Employees' Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Performance: A Sequential Mediation Model. Sustainability, 8(5), p. 493.
Shipman, M., 1997. The limitations of social research. 4th ed. London: Longman.
Shirey, M., 2006. Authentic leaders creating healthy work environments for nursing practice. American Journal of Critical Care, 15(3), pp. 256-267.
Shirom, A., 2003. Job-related burnout. In: J. Quick & L. Tetrick, eds. Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 245-264.
Shuck, B., 2011. Four emerging perspectives on employee engagement: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), pp. 204-238.
Shuck, B. & Wollard, K., 2010. Employee Engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resources Development Review, 10(3), pp. 304-328.
252
Siegel, D. & Vitaliano, D., 2007. An Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Use of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 16(3), pp. 772-793.
Sigala, M., 2008. A supply chain management approach investigating the role of tour operators on sustainable tourism: The case of TUI. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), pp. 1589-1599.
Sinclair, J., 2005. The impact of stories. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), pp. 53-64.
Singhapakdi, A., Lee, D., Sirgy, M.J., and Senasu, K., 2015. The impact of incongruity between an organization’s CSR orientation and its employees’ CSR orientation on employees’ quality of work life. Journal of Business Research, 68, pp. 60–66.
Singhapakdi, A. & Vitell, S., 2007. Institutionalization of Ethics and its Consequences: A Survey of Marketing Professionals. Academy of Marketing Sciences, 35(2), pp. 284-294.
Singh, N. & Krishnan, V., 2008. Self-sacrifice and transformational leadership: Mediating role of altruism. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 29(3), pp. 261-274.
Slack, R., Corlett, S. & Morris, R., 2015. Exploring Employee Engagement with (Corporate) Social Responsibility: A Social Exchange Perspective on Organisational Participation. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 127, pp. 537-548.
Sloan, P., Legrand, W. & Chen, J., 2013. Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry: Principles of Sustainable Operations. 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Smith, A. & Hume, E., 2005. Linking culture and ethics: A comparison of accountants' ethical belief systems in the individualism/collectivism and power distance contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), pp. 202-220.
Smith, C., 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how?. California Management Review, 45(4), pp. 52-76.
Smith, J. & Tyler, T., 1997. Choosing the right pond: The impact of group membership on self-esteem and group oriented behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 33, pp. 146-170.
Smith, P. & Sharicz, C., 2011. The shift needed for sustainability. The Learning Organization, 18(1), pp. 73-86.
Smith, P. & Sharicz, C., 2011. The shift needed for sustainability. The Learning Organization, 18(1), pp. 73-86.
Smith, V. & Langford, P., 2011. Responsible or redundant? Engaging the Workforce through Corporate Social Responsibility. Australian Journal of Management, 36(3), pp. 425-447.
Snape, D. & Spencer, L., 2003. The foundations of qualitative research. In: J. Ritchie & J. Lewis, eds. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students. London: Sage, pp. 2-10.
Snyder, M. & Omoto, A., 2008. Volunteerism: Social issues persepectives and social policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2(1), pp. 1-36.
253
Soane, E., 2014. Leadership and employee engagement in Truss, C., Delbridge, R., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., and Soane, E. (Eds.) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. London, UK: Rutledge, pp. 149-162.
Specter, C. & Solomon, J., 1990. The human resource factor in Chinese management reform: Comparing the attitudes and motivations of future managers in Shanghai, China; Baltimore, Maryland; and Miami, Florida. International Studies of Management and Organizations, Volume 20, pp. 69-83.
Sperry, R. & Jetter, A., 2012. Fuzzy cognitive maps to implement corporate social responsibility in product planning: A novel approach. Vancouver, IEEE, pp. 2536-2541.
Spitzeck, H. & Hansen, E., 2010. Stakeholder Governance - How do stakeholder influence corporate decision-making?. Corporate Governance, 10(4), pp. 378-391.
Sprinkle, G. & Maines, L., 2010. The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 53(5), pp. 445-453.
Stabler, M. & Goodall, B., 1997. Environmental Awareness, Action, and Performance in the Guernsey Hospitality Sector. Tourism Management, 18(1), pp. 19-33.
Stake, R., 1983. The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. Evaluation in Education and Human Services, Volume 6, pp. 279-286.
Stake, R., 1994. Qualitative Case Studies. In: N. Denzen & Y. Lincoln, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage, pp. 105-117.
Stake, R., 1998. Case Studies. In: N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, eds. Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 86-109.
Stake, R., 2006. Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: Guildford Press.
Stawiski, S., Deal, J. & Gentry, W., 2010. Employee Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: The Implications for your Organization, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Stead, W. & Stead, J., 1992. Management for a small planet: Strategic decision making and the environment. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Stevens, J., Steensma, H., Harrison, D. & Cochran, P., 2005. Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives' decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), pp. 181-195.
Stoian, C. & Zaharia, R., 2012. CSR development in post-communist economies: employees' expectations regarding corporate social responsible behaviour - the case of Romania. Business Ethics, 21(4), pp. 380-401.
Strandberg, C., 2009. The Role of Human Resource Management in Corproate Social Responsibility. [Online] Available at: http://corostrandberg.com/wp-content/uploads/files/CSR_and_HR_Management.pdf[Accessed 14 September 2015].
254
Stryker, S. and Burke, P.J., 2000. The Past, Present, and Future of Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), pp. 284-297.
Sundaray, B., 2011. Employee engagement: A driver of organisational effectiveness. European Journal of Business Management, 3(8), pp. 53-59.
Sunpanti, D., Butcher, K. & Fredline, L., 2015. Enhancing the employer-employee relationship through corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, pp. 1479-1498.
Swanson, D., 2008. Top managers as drivers for corporate social responsibility. In: The Oxford Handbook of Corproate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 227-248.
Swanson, D. & Niehoff, P., 2001. Business citizenship outside and inside organisations. In: J. Andriof & M. McIntosh, eds. Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing, pp. 104-116.
Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F., 2001. Foundations of Human Resource Development. San Francissco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Swarbrooke, J., 1999. Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Sweeney, L., 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility in Ireland. Barriers and Opportunities Experienced by SMEs When Undertaking CSR. International Journal of Business in Society, 7(4), pp. 516-523.
Tangirala, S. & Ramanujam, R., 2008a. Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personal Psychology, Volume 61, pp. 37-68.
Tangirala, S. & Ramanujam, R., 2008b. Exploring nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, Volume 51, pp. 1189-1203.
Tang, Z., Hull, C.E., and Rothenberg, S., 2012. How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy moderates the CSR-financial performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 49, pp. 1274-1303.
Tajfel, H., 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33 (1), pp. 1--39.
Tajfel, H., 1978. Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.) Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press, pp. 61-76.
Tavakoli, A., Keenan, J. & Crnjak-Karanovic, B., 2003. Culture and Whistleblowing an Empirical Study of Croation and United States Managers Utilizing Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. Journal of Busienss Ethics, Volume 43, pp. 49-64.
Teddlie, C. & Yu, F., 2007. Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology with Examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), pp. 77-100.
255
Tenbrunsel, A., Wade-Benzoni, K., Messick, D. & Bazerman, M., 2000. Understanding the influence of environmental standards on judgments and choicse. Academy of Management Journal, Volume 43, pp. 854-866.
Tench, R., Bowd, R. & Jones, B., 2007. Perceptions and perspectives: Corporate social responsibility and the media. Journal of Communication Management, 11(4), pp. 348-370.
Tepelus, C., 2005. Aiming for sustainability in tour operating business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(2), pp. 99-107.
Tesone, D. & Ricci, P., 2005. Job Competency Expectations for Hospitality and Tourism Employees. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 4(2), pp. 53-64.
Thaler, R., 2000. From homo economicus to homo sapiens. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 14, pp. 133-141.
Thomas, S. & Christoffer, B., 1999. Corporate Volunteerism: Essential Tools for Excellence in Corporate Community Involvement, Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Corporate Community Relations, Boston College.
Thorne, L. & Saunders, S., 2002. The Socio-Cultural Embeddedness of Individuals' Ethical Reasoning in Organizations (Cross-Cultural Ethics). Journal of Business Ethics, 35(1), pp. 1-14.
Tierney, P., Bauer, T. & Potter, R., 2002. Extra-role behavior among Mexican employees: The impact of LMX, group acceptance, and job attitudes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(4), pp. 292-303.
Tour Operators Initiative, 2005. Integrating Sustainability into business: Management guide for responsible tour operators, s.l.: Tour Operators Initaitive.
Treviño, L. & Nelson, K., 2004. Managing Business Ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. 3rrd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Truss, C. et al., 2013. Employee engagement, organizational performance, and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, delveoping the theory. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), pp. 2657-2669.
Tsai, H., Tsang, N. & Cheng, S., 2012. Hotel employees' perceptions on corporate social responsibility: The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), pp. 1143-1154.
Tsiakis, T., 2015. Trends and Innovations in Marketing Information Systems. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Tsui, J. & Windsor, C., 2001. Some Cross-Cultural Evidence on Ethical Reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 31, pp. 143-150.
Tuffrey, M., 1995. Employees and the Community: How Successful Companies Meet Human Resources Needs through Community Involvement, London: PRIMA Europe and the Corproate Citizenship Company.
256
Tuffrey, M., 1997. Employees and the Community: How Successful Companies Meet Human Resource Needs Through Community Involvement. Career Development International, 2(1), pp. 33-35.
Tuffrey, M., 1998. Valuing Employee Community Involvement: A Practical Guide on Measuring the Benefits from Employee Volunteering in the Community, London: Corporate Citizenship Company.
Tuffrey, M., 2003. Good Companies Better Employees: How Community Involvement and Good Corporate Citizenship Can Enhance Morale, Motivation, Commitment and Performance, London: Corporate Citizenship Company.
Turban, D. & Greening, D., 1997. Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), pp. 658-672.
Turker, D., 2009a. How corporate social responsibility influences organisational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), pp. 189-204.
Turker, D., 2009b. Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), pp. 411-427.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., and Wetherell, M.S., 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Turner, J.C., Oakes, P.J., Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., 1994. Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, pp. 454-463.
Tushman, M. & Katz, R., 1980. External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11), pp. 1071-1085.
Tuzzolino, F. & Armandi, B., 1981. A Need-Hierarchy Framework for Assessing Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), pp. 21-28.
Tyler, T. & Blader, S., 2000. Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. & Blader, S., 2001. Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Volume 4, pp. 207-226.
Tyler, T. & Blader, S., 2002. Autonomous vs. comparative status: must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Volume 89, pp. 813-838.
Tyler, T. & Blader, S., 2003. The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Volume 7, pp. 349-361.
Tyler, T. & Blader, S., 2013. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. Philedelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Valentine, S. & Fleischman, G., 2008. Ethics Programs, Percieved Corproate Social Responsibility and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), pp. 159-172.
257
Valentin, M., Valentin, C. & Nafukho, F., 2015. The engagement continuum model using corporate social responsibility as an intervention for sustained employee engagement: Research leading practice. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(3), pp. 182-202.
Valor, C., 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business and Society Review, 110(2), pp. 191-212.
Valor, C., 2008. Can consumers buy responsibly? Analysis and solutions for market failures. Journal of Consumer Policy, Volume 31, pp. 315-326.
Van Bueren, H. & Greenwood, M., 2008. Enhancing Employee Voice: Are Voluntary Employer-Employee Partnerships Enough?. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 81, pp. 209-221.
Van Buren, H., 2001. If fairness is the problem, is consent the solultion? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), pp. 481-499.
Van Buren, H., 2005. An employee-centred model of corporate social performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(4), pp. pp. 687-709.
van de Mosselaer, F., van der Duim, R. & van Wijk, J., 2012. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Tour Operating Industry: The Case of Dutch Outbound Tour Operators. In: D. Leslie, ed. Tourism Enterprises and the Sustainability Agenda across Europe. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 71-93.
van de Ven, B., 2008. An Ethical Framework for the Marketing of Corporate Socail Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), pp. 339-352.
van Knippenberg, D. & Schippers, M., 2007. Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 58, pp. 515-541.
Van Marrewijk, M., 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), pp. 95-105.
Van Wijk, J. & Persoon, W., 2006. A Long Haul Destination: Sustainable reporting among tour operators. European Management Journal, 24(6), pp. 381-395.
Vera, D. & Crossan, M., 2004. Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), pp. 222-240.
Verbos, A. et al., 2007. The positive ethical organization: Enacting a living code of ethics and ethical organizational identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), pp. 17-33.
Vermaut, H. & Zanoni, P., 2014. You look for diversity management, you find CSR: Practices aligning business goals and minorities' needs in Flemish SMEs. In: M. Karatas-Ozkan, K. Nicolopoulou & M. Ozbilgin, eds. Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Management: A Diversity Perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 168.
Vigna, D., List, S. & Malmendier, U., 2009. Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving, Cambridge, MA: NBER Working Paper Series.
258
Vinerean, S., Cetină, I., Dumitrescu, L. & Tichindelean, M., 2013. Modelling employee engagement in relation to CSR practices and employee satisfaction. Revista Economica, 65(1), pp. 21-37.
Vitell, S. & Festervant, T., 1987. Business Ethics: Conflicts, Practices and Beliefs of Industrial Executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2), pp. 111-122.
Vlachos, P., Epitropaki, O., Panagopoulos, N. & Rapp, A., 2013a. Causal attributions and employee reactions to corporate social responsibiilty. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 6, pp. 334-337.
Vlachos, P., Panagopolous, N. & Rapp, A., 2013b. Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 118, pp. 577-588.
Vlachos, P., Theotokis, A. & Panagopolous, N., 2010. Sales force reactions to corporate social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust. Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 39, pp. 1207-1218.
Vlek, C. & Steg, L., 2007. Human Behavior and Environmental Sustainability: Problems, Driving Forces, and Research Topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), pp. 1-19.
Voegtlin, C. and Greenwood, M., 2016. Corproate social responsibility and human resource management: A systematic review and conceptual analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 26(3), pp. 181-197.
Vogel, D., 2005. The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Vora, D., Kostova, T., and Roth, K., 2007. Roles of subsidiary managers in multinational corporations: The effect of dual organizational identification. Management International Review, 47(4), pp. 595-620.
Vos, J., 2009. Actions speak louder than words: Greenwashing in corporate America. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, Volume 23, pp. 673-797.
Waddock, S., 2004. Parallel Universes: Companies, Academics, and the Progress of Corporate Citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109(1), pp. 5-42.
Waddock, S. & Bodwell, C., 2007. Total responsibility management: The manual. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
Waddock, S. & McIntosh, M., 2009. Beyond Corporate Responsibility: Implications for Management Development. Business and Society Review, 114(3), pp. 295-325.
Wagner, R. & Harter, J., 2006. The Great Elements of Managing. Washington, DC: Gallup.
Waldman, D. et al., 2006. Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), pp. 823-837.
259
Waldman, D., Ramierez, G., House, R. & Puranam, P., 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes & profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), pp. 134-143.
Waldman, D. & Siegel, D., 2008. Defining the social responsible leader. Leadership Quarterly, Volume 19, pp. 117-131.
Waldman, D., Siegel, D. & Javidan, M., 2006b. Components of CEO Transformational Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, Volume 43, pp. 1703-1725.
Walker, K. & Wan, F., 2012. The Harm of Symbolic Actions and Green-Washing: Corporate Actions and Communications on Environmental Performance and Their Financial Implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), pp. 227-242.
Walle, A., 1995. Business ethics and tourism: From micro to macro perspectives. Tourism Management, 16(4), pp. 263-268.
Wall, G. & Mathieson, A., 2006. Tourism: change, impacts and opportunities. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Wartick, S. & Cochran, P., 1985. The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), pp. 758-769.
Waugh, W., 1999. Living with Hazards, Dealing with Disasters. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Weaver, G., Trevino, L. & Cochran, P., 1999. Integrated and Decoupled Corporate Social Performance: Management Commitments, External Pressures, and Corporate Ethics Practices. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), pp. 539-552.
Wehrmeyer, W. & McNeil, M., 2000. Activists, Pragmatists, Technophiles and Tree-huggers? Gender Differences in Employees' Environmental Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), pp. 211-222.
Weigelt, K. & Camerer, C., 1988. Reputation and Corporate Strategy: A Review of Recent Theory and Applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9(5), pp. 443-454.
Weiss, H. & Rupp, D., 2011. Experiencing work: an essay on a person-centric work psychology. Individual Organizational Psychology, Volume 4, pp. 83-97.
Welbourne, T., 2011. Engaged in what? So what? A role-based perspective for the future of employee engagement. In: A. Wilkinson & K. Townsend, eds. The Future of Employee Relations. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 85-100.
Welch, M., 2012. Appropriateness and Acceptability: Employee perspectives of internal communication. Public Relations Review, 38, pp. 246-254.
Welch, M. (2011) The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), pp. 328-346.
Welford, R., 1995. Environmental strategy and sustainable development. London, UK: Routledge.
260
Wells, G., 2013. Sustainable Business: Theory and Practice of Business Under Sustainability Principles. Cheltenham: Edward Elger.
Wells, V. et al., 2015. Heritage Tourism, CSR, and the role of employeee environmental behaviour. Tourism Management, Volume 48, pp. 399-413.
Westphal, J. & Zajac, E., 2001. Decoupling Policy from Practice: The Case of Stock Repurchase Programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), pp. 202-228.
Wever, G. & Vorhauer, G., 1993. Kodak's framework and assessment tool for implementing TQEM. Total Quality Environmental Management, 3(1), pp. 19-30.
Whitehouse, L., 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility: Views from the Frontline. Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 63, pp. 279-296.
Whittenberg, J., Harmon, J., Russell, W. & Fairfield, K., 2007. HR's Role in Building a Sustainable Enterprise: Insights From Some of the World's Best Companies. Human Resource Planning, 30(1), pp. 10-20.
Whyte, W., 1956. The Organization Man. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Wilde, C., 1993. Corporate Volunteer Programs: Benefits to Business. New York, NY: The Conference Board.
Wiles, R., 2013. What are Qualitative Research Ethics. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Wilhelm, M., Brown, E., Rooney, P. & Steinberg, R., 2006. The intergenerational transmission of generosity. s.l.:Working Paper, IUPUI.
Winn, M., 2001. .Building Stakeholder Theory with a Decision Modeling Methodology. Business & Society, 40(2), pp. 133-166.
Wolfe, R.A. and Putler, D.S., 2002. How Tight are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups? Organization Science, 13(1), pp. 64-80.
Wolf, J., 2013. Improving teh Sustainability Development of Firms: The Role of Employees. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(2), pp. PP. 92-108.
Wollard, K. & Shuck, B., 2011. Antecedents to Employee Engagement: A Structured Review of the Literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), pp. 429-446.
Wrzensniewski, A., 2003. Finding positive meaning in work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wrzensniewski, A., Dutton, J. & Debebe, G., 2003. Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. In: B. Straw & R. Krammer, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, pp. 93-136.
261
Wu, C., Neuberg, M. & Yi, X., 2007. Transformational Leadership, Cohesion Perceptions, and Employee Cynicism about Organizational Change: The Mediating Role of Justice Perceptions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, Volume 43, pp. 327-351.
Wymer, W. & Samu, S., 2003. Dimensions of business and nonprofit collaborative relationships. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), pp. 3-22.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A., Demerouti, E. & Schaufeli, W., 2007. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), pp. 121-141.
Yankelovich, D. & Immerwahr, J., 1984. Putting the work ethic to work. Society, 21(2), pp. 58-76.
Yeoman, I., Munro, C. & McMahon-Beattie, U., 2006. Tomorrow's: World, consumer and tourist. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(2), pp. 174-190.
Yin, R., 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Thousan Oaks: Sage.
Yin, R., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Yin, R., 2003. Case Study Research, Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Yin, R., 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Yuan, W., Bao, Y. & Verbeke, A., 2011. Integrating CSR initiatives in business: An organizing Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), pp. 75-92.
Yukl, G., 2001. Leadership in organizations. In: S. Zaccaro, A. Ritman & M. Marks, eds. Team Leadership. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 451-483.
Zaleznik, A., 1998. Managers and leaders: are they different?, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Zammuto, R. & Krakower, J., 1991. Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of Organizational Culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development, Volume 5, pp. 83-114.
Zerbe, W. & Paulhus, D., 1987. Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A Reconception. Academy of Management Journal, 12(2), pp. 250-264.
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Themes for Engaged EmployeesEMPLOYEES
1. What makes you participate?
2. What stops you from participating?
3. How do we get others to participate?
4. What effect did this have on your sense of engagement?
262
5. How do we make it better?
1. Drivers and Barriers to CSR Engagement1.1. Opportunities1.1.1. Motivation
Why did you choose to participate in _______ project?Why do you think other people choose to participate in projects at work?Why do you think some people might choose not to?So you’re obviously doing it because you’re really passionate about sustainability but some people I’ve talked to are just doing it to boost their CV. How do you feel about that?Is there any pressure to participate?
Who from? Company culture Part of job review/job expectations1.1.2. Intervention Design
What did you like about participating in this project?What did you find challenging about this project?So you decided to participate in ____ but obviously there are lots of different things going on around the office. How do you decide which projects to participate in?
1.1.3. IncentivesWhat are incentives that encourage people to participate in projects?Are these incentives effective? Why or why not?What else might encourage people to participate?Prompt: If you could be rewarded in any way for your participation, what would be most encouraging?
1.2. BarriersWhat encourages you to keep participating in projects?What might stop you or other employees from participating?What kind of conversations do you have with co-workers who don’t participate?What would you suggest to increase participation?
Prompt: You mentioned earlier ____ is challenging/helpful when you participate; do you think your colleagues would find the same?
1.3. LeadershipWho do you go to if you need guidance or advice about getting involved with projects at work?What kind of person would motivate you to participate?
Prompt: What kind of characteristics would they have?1.3.1. Managers
How are your managers involved in projects? Do they encourage participation?
o What’s their relationship like with people who are disengaged? Do they participate themselves?
If your manager DOES encourage you:What style of leadership does your manager use to encourage people to participate?If your manager does NOT encourage you:What is it about this style of leadership that stops people from participating?
1.3.2. ChampionsCan you tell me a bit more about the sustainability champions?What do you think their vision is for sustainability?How do they help the company succeed with sustainability projects?What could they do differently?What do they do to get people to engage in projects?
Is there something more that they could do that they’re not doing?
263
1.3.3. Leadership StyleWhat would the behaviour of your ideal leader look like?
level of involvement, transparency, flexibility, communication, how decisions are made1.4. Communication
So lots of these projects for ___ to be more responsibly, whether it’s for the environment or the community. How are you told why [COMPANY] does a project?How are you told about the ways in which you can contribute?Do you understand how your job and objectives ‘fit’ in with these strategic goals?
If yes: How did you come to understand how you contribute to these goals? If no: What could we do so that you understand how you impact these goals?
Do you identify with the organisations CR/Sustainability mission?2. Sense of Engagement2.1. Benefits of Engaging
Do you gain anything from participating? Professionally Personally2.2. Impact of Engagement
How does participating in these projects influence your work life?How does it influence your attitude towards the company?
Towards your manager?2.3. Employee-Company Identification
Do you feel a sense of belonging or connection to [COMPANY]?In what ways do you think your connection to the organisation influences your participation?
Or do you participate not because of the organisation but because of the project (either because it’s something you want to do or the cause resonates with you)
Warm down and farewell
264
Appendix B: Sample TranscriptInterviewer: So why don’t we just start by talking a little bit more about the [champion network]. Why did you decide to join?
Respondent: Okay, yeah, cool. So actually I started working at [this company] about three and a bit years ago, was quite interested in responsible tourism. I studied Tourism at university as well, tour led for a few years for different companies, so always really interested in that sort of community involvement and someone benefiting from tourism. So when I joined here I loved the fact that it was responsible and had like [a champion network] so it was amazing. And my girlfriend actually was [part of the network]. Well I joined and we sort of got together and then she left and I took her place basically.
Interviewer: Yeah, strategic. (Laughing)
Respondent: Essentially, yeah. “You’ve got to leave now?” So she left and then I joined the [team] after she left. Yeah, mainly I was just interested and passionate about it really. That was in its old guise. And then just sort of moved around a little bit a couple of years ago, I guess, a year and a half ago or so, and now it’s just a bit of a smaller [team] which I sort of head up, but not really, it’s more of a sort of (inaudible 00:01:15) committee but... Yeah, I suppose really just passionate and I like doing things that I can make a change and try and influence change so that’s a great way of doing things basically.
Interviewer: Yeah. And are you involved in the other things that happen around the office?
Respondent: Yeah, generally. Yeah, I try and get stuck into as much as possible. [My colleague] sort of mainly manages [this CSR project], which she’s really good at doing but, yeah lots of other initiatives that we do. Raising money for Nepal last year, I had quite a lot to do with... We do a lot of college lectures as well which I mainly do here. Yeah, I try and get involved as much as possible.
Interviewer: Got your hands in all the pies and try it all. (Laughing)
Respondent: Yeah, I try to, which generally means that it’s just a bit of a disaster because I don’t have time to do anything. Obviously the good thing about the [CSR network] is you can do really passionate projects but also it’s not my job, my job, so it’s sort of add-on stuff. Yeah, and I sit with our Director, once a week, we meet and just talk about all the things that are happening [with our products] ... So we week on a weekly basis and discuss what’s going on with all that as well.
Interviewer: And are there any projects you choose not to get involved in?
Respondent: Not choose not to. I try and delegate where I can to other people in the [network] to try and get them, more so they can get involved in stuff. No, there’s nothing that I choose not to, it’s more if I know I’m not going to have time to do it and someone else would probably do a better job than I would then I’d... yeah.
Interviewer: Making sure it goes to the right person?
265
Respondent: Yeah, where possible. It’s hard because you sort of want to get involved in everything but, you know, there’s no time for that sort of stuff. So, yeah, I don’t choose to not get involved in anything but I try and spread it out as much as possible.
Interviewer: Yeah, there’s only so many hours in the day. (Laughs)
Respondent: Yeah. And I like to go home, so yeah. (Laughs)
Interviewer: Surprisingly. (Laughing)
Respondent: Yeah, I know. (Laughing)
Interviewer: Is there anything that you or other people might find challenging about the projects?
Respondent: I think it’s probably a lot to do with what we’re talking about here. What we find challenging is people don’t get as interested about it as we do. I would say that’s probably... And I’m sure other [champions] that you’ve spoken to... I know [Sarah] would probably say the same thing. That can be a bit frustrating where we’re like, “Come on, this is great!”
Interviewer: Yeah, “This is great!” (Laughing)
Respondent: Yeah. Everyone’s got their own stuff going on. So that can be a bit of a challenge about getting people on board basically. So that’s probably one of the hardest things about the projects that we do, getting people excited about it.
Interviewer: And how do you hear about the results of the projects after they’ve happened?
Respondent: It depends on what it is but either we’ll be monitoring it ourselves or if it’s like an overseas project then it’s just trying to get feedback from our local agent or from... So it’s just generally badgering people to try and give us information and then we try and disseminate it around the company to varying effect; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
Interviewer: And is there anything that you find particularly works or doesn’t work?
Respondent: Things that don’t work are probably emails, people don’t read them, or they might... if you’re doing very sort of top line bam, bam, bam, people might read them but (inaudible 00:04:32) quite quickly. We all get sent a lot of emails here every day. Yeah, so things that I think work well are posters, they work well... Actually I’m not sure about posters, I don’t think posters do work well. Sometimes I do a talk at our monthly update meetings, I think that works reasonably well because it’s just sort of me standing up for two minutes and being like, “We’ve done this, this and this,” and I think people remember that. But I think, yeah, probably those sort of things, people talking about it quickly in short bursts, “This is what we’ve done, this is what we’re going to do,” I think that probably works the best. Emails don’t work.
Interviewer: So person to person and quite concise. (Laughs)
Respondent: Yeah, exactly, yeah, because otherwise... “Oh God...,” yeah.
Interviewer: “Not this again.” (Laughing)
266
Respondent: Yeah, I think that’s probably what people think.
Interviewer: Yeah, I know that feeling when the email pops into your inbox and you’re just like, “Oh delete”. (Laughing)
Respondent: Yeah, that’s it, and it’s a shame because it’s about like good stuff, but then (inaudible 00:05:24) just don’t... (inaudible 00:05:25) enough.
Interviewer: Yeah, gets buried in the avalanche of emails. (Laughing)
Respondent: Yeah, exactly.
Interviewer: So do you think you’ll keep participating [as a champion]?
Respondent: Yeah.
Interviewer: And is there anything about it that you’d change?
Respondent: What would I change? (Pause) Don’t know really what I would change. I mean, I’d like us to have more time to do stuff probably. I’d like people who are in the [network] to be able to have more time to actually say, “Okay, today I’m going to delegate two hours to doing this,” and if we all knew once a week for two hours a week we could always just work on that stuff, that would be amazing. That would probably be the one thing I would change.
Interviewer: A bit more time to focus on it?
Respondent: Yeah, because no one’s got time for it. They will do things if you sort of jog them and say, “Let’s do it, let’s do it, let’s do it,” but people just don’t have time.
Interviewer: What do you think about someone doing it as a full-time position?
Respondent: We used to have someone here, way before my time, and that was her full-time position. I don’t think it would ever happen again. She was great at what she did but I think it’s just a bit of an out... it’s an expenditure that can’t really be quantified. So, yeah, I think it would be nice but I don’t know what you would really... There shouldn’t need to be someone, it should be engrained in what we do; our Ops Managers and our Product Managers and our Sales Guys should know enough about responsible tourism and being responsible that we shouldn’t need someone to badger them the whole time, it should just be engrained in what we do. One of our key messages is that we’re responsible in everything we do and we should be responsible so all our products should be responsible, all our training, our tour leaders, so we shouldn’t need someone.
Interviewer: It’s an interesting approach. And do you think it helps that it is quite embedded in most processes?
Respondent: Yeah, I mean, it has to be because otherwise you have this sort of CSR team and then they’re constantly trying to get buy-in from other people and it’s more linked to HR, I think, than it is to the sort of... Whereas ours isn’t really that linked to... it is a little bit but it’s more in the product and... Hmm, is it? I suppose it is sort of half and half. But, yeah, I think it works reasonably well the way it is; most of the people in the product team and the (inaudible 00:07:59) team are aware of sort of responsible tourism, they understand the basics of it and
267
most of them understand what they’re not supposed to do. Might not understand what they should do but they understand what they shouldn’t do. So it works reasonably well, yeah.
Interviewer: Yeah, it’s very interesting. And do you have conversations with colleagues who aren’t really interested or don’t participate?
Respondent: Yep. Yeah, we do. Yeah, there are definitely people... I mean, no one wants to ever admit that they’re not. (Laughs) No one will ever say, “Oh I don’t care about that”. They might do as a joke but no one... And probably the people that do say that actually care quite a lot. But definitely some people who are just... they’ll just, “Sorry, I haven’t got time for this,” so they’re just not... They like hearing about it, they’re, “Oh that’s nice, it’s good that we do that,” but they don’t actually buy in, they don’t actively buy into it.
Interviewer: Personally, mm.
Respondent: Yeah, personally buy into it, exactly. Yeah, so there are but it’s a hard one because most people just don’t say anything.
Interviewer: Yeah. And would the [champions] ever ask, “Why do you not?”
Respondent: We did a survey a couple of years ago, I think, and asked how engaged people were but most people say they’re really engaged or they’re really interested. I think it’s a very tough one to sort of... It’s like if you ask a consumer, “Would you buy products that are responsible?” everyone says, “Yes,” and then you whack a hundred quid on a product and say, “This is responsible,” and no one buys it. (Laughs)
Interviewer: (Laughs)
Respondent: So I think, yeah, it’s a tough ask to... And it would be great if (inaudible 00:09:21) couldn’t care less about it.
Interviewer: I think I was quite naive going into my research, I thought more people would want to have a little moan about not participating and it’s been hard.
Respondent: Anyone here?
Interviewer: I looked for people that were like part of the [champion network] or not part of the [champion network], so... And actually I think that’s a better way of asking rather than like “do you not participate at all?” because that’s the approach two of my other companies took and no one wants to step forward and say, “I don’t agree with my company’s values”. (Laughs)
Respondent: Well this is the thing, because actually you shouldn’t be here, if you don’t buy into it then why are you here, and actually we should... I mean, the regime side of this is actually if you’re not the right person you should leave. That’s never going to happen. There are some companies who are much stricter about this type of thing than we are; [competing company 1] and [competing company 2] I think it’s much more in the whole ethos. You know, at [competing company 2], I think part of their annual review of each person’s appraisal is they’re judged on their sustainably stuff.
Interviewer: I think at [competing company 1] as well, it’s part of their PDP, which is…
268
Respondent: It’s cool, right?
Interviewer: Yeah, it’s really interesting.
Respondent: Yeah, it’s amazing. I’d love to work for someone who’s even more involved. It would be amazing. I don’t think there’s many British companies that are –
Interviewer: Are like that?
Respondent: I don’t think so, not at the moment anyway.
Interviewer: Yeah. Yeah, it’s been interesting finding out what’s going on because, you know, as a researcher you’re not really part of the industry but then I’m writing about it and evaluating it. So, yeah, it’s very interesting. And do you think that people benefit from participating?
Respondent: That’s a good question. (Pause) Do they benefit from participating?
Interviewer: Mm.
Respondent: I’d like to say yes. I haven’t really got any evidence to back up what I’ve got to say. I think they should do. I think it depends on your... Personally, I know I benefit from participating because I feel good about what I do, I enjoy it myself, on a personal level I enjoy it, it makes me feel good about the company I work for, so I would like to think those feelings are shared by other people. So, yeah, I think most people would benefit from it. Yeah, so I’m going to be positive and say yes. (Laughs)
Interviewer: Yeah. And do you think it changes the way people view their organisation if it engages in responsible behaviour?
Respondent: Yeah, I think so. People are very different, though, you know, for me, I couldn’t work... not couldn’t, I wouldn’t want to work for a company for a long time if I wasn’t feeling proud of working for them and passionate; you spend so much time at work, like you have to love where you work. But there are definitely... you know, a lot of people here love [our company], are they proud of work because it was responsible, probably not. I’m sure probably 50/50 or maybe less. So I think, yeah, it should make a massive difference, I think people should be excited about who they work for and I think being a responsible company should make you proud of who you work for. So, yeah, I think it should make a big difference.
Interviewer: Do you think having all the responsible projects changes the way people feel about their managers and co-workers?
Respondent: No.
Interviewer: No?
Respondent: No, I don’t think so. I manage a team of two, I’d like to think they think I’m a nice guy because (inaudible 00:14:06) and I help people. (Laughing)
Interviewer: Well I have a feeling they do because your name’s actually come up in every single conversation I’ve had all day.
269
Respondent: I just bash people about not recycling.
Interviewer: No. (Laughs) Like “Who would you speak to about this?” “[Logan].” “Who would speak to?” “[Logan].” (Laughs)
Respondent: Tell me about it, bloody emails all the time.
Interviewer: Yeah, you’re the go-to guy.
Respondent: Yeah, and that’s because I’m the sort of face of it because I’m the person who stands up in the monthly update meetings and am generally sort of (makes noise), “Let’s go, let’s go,” which is cool and, yeah, I’m happy to do that, so it’s good. Yeah, I don’t know if it matters that much between like individual colleagues and managers whether (inaudible 00:14:44), I don’t think so. I think it can bring you closer together. The things like the [our CSR project], I think that’s been really good, over the last year particularly, about getting people to enjoy hanging out with their sort of colleagues and I think if it’s done well that can really bring people together, I think, more in a sort of sociable side which obviously does help the whole working environment. But, yeah, I guess so, just about.
Interviewer: (Laughs) Are there any incentives to participate?
Respondent: No.
Interviewer: No, nothing?
Respondent: You just get judged if you don’t basically.
Interviewer: Speaking of judgement, do you think there’s pressure to get involved if you don’t?
Respondent: (Hesitates) I’m trying to think of an example where there has been pressure or not. I mean, I definitely give people a hard time but in a jokey way but... and only people that I think I can give a hard time to, I’d definitely be like, “Sort yourself out”. [Sarah] definitely, you know, I send some shirty emails to people if they haven’t got on board. More like a team, if a team is supposed to be…
Interviewer: Yeah, someone you have a personal relationship with (over speaking).
Respondent: Yeah, or just like the whole team, be like, “You guys need to do this. [Our CSR project], you know, it’s once a year, you just need to sort this out”. So there probably is a little bit of pressure. I don’t think anyone ever gets sort of ostracised or victimised if they’re not getting involved but I think... Yeah, there is a little bit of pressure, I think, yeah, which I think is fine.
Interviewer: Positive pressure?
Respondent: It’s not really bullying, it’s advice.
Interviewer: (Laughs) It’s not bullying.
270
Respondent: It’s not bullying, (over speaking) it’s not.
Interviewer: “I swear.” (Laughing) I think that’s everything I wanted to pick your brain about.
Respondent: Cool.
Interviewer: Is there anything you wanted to add or any questions you might have?
Respondent: (Pause) No, because this stuff absolutely fascinates me.
Interviewer: Yeah, it’s interesting, isn’t it?
Respondent: Yeah, I think it’s really interesting and I think it’s... Because for me it’s so important, you know, me working at [this company], if I hadn’t have got involved in the sort of responsible tourism stuff... well I probably would still be here but I’d be a different person to it than I am, you know, it’s opened so many doors for me, talking at the monthly update meetings, and at the annual review last week I spoke in front of the whole company, and doing the university lectures. So it’s opened so much to me that it’s massively become a huge part of what I do and what I... And not even the sort of passion but actually just as a... becoming a better public speaker, doing all these different things, so getting involved in these projects has helped me in ways that I didn’t know about so that I know how –
Interviewer: Yeah, you didn’t go in looking for that.
Respondent: No, no, I never... You know, if someone had said to me, “Oh yeah, in two years you’ll be lecturing at universities, you’ll be talking at schools, you’ll be doing this,” I just... “Cool,” but, you know, I never thought that. So for me it’s really helped. It’s not replicable because no one gets the same things but... Yeah, no, I don’t know, I don’t know if I’ve got any questions, (inaudible 00:17:41) you can’t tell me any of the answers. (Laughs)
Interviewer: Maybe, maybe I can. (Laughing)
Respondent: I want names. (Laughs) Who’s not interested? (Laughs)
Interviewer: (Laughs)
Respondent: Who can we...? I suppose what I would love from you, and not now but at some point is if once you have gone through everything, if there’s any recommendations for us that we can really –
Interviewer: Yeah, definitely.
Respondent: Like how can we get people more engaged? And I suppose it’s important but like…
Interviewer: Well that was when I started, I said, “Are they just a lost cause, people that don’t engage? Should we try to engage them or just move on?” So yeah.
271
Respondent: Hmm. There’s been a bit of research about that type of thing, hasn’t there, I’ve been reading quite a lot about people who are... about happiness in jobs, (inaudible 00:18:24) satisfaction. There’s also (inaudible 00:18:27) 10% just like... you know, they’re a dead weight; you’re never going to get them on-board. So I’d be really interested to hear from you about that, about, you know, “Some of your guys said this, maybe this is the way you could do more,” or “These are the things that definitely don’t work and (over speaking) do more of”. So I’d love to hear about that, definitely.
Interviewer: Because I know [Sarah] was curious about volunteer days, if that was something that appealed to people, and thus far I would say yes.
Respondent: That people are interested?
Interviewer: Yeah.
Respondent: I believe that this is one of things that people say, “I’d love to do a volunteer day”
Interviewer: Some organisations do it like you’re booking a holiday day off and then on that day you can do anything you want as long as it’s volunteering. So it’s not a team activity so you could a cause that’s personal to you but you get the time off work. And that seems actually to have quite good feedback around it.
Respondent: Really?
Interviewer: Obviously not everyone uses it but if you don’t use it then you’re just at work so it doesn’t matter.
Respondent: Right, okay, so it’s just an additional day essentially?
Interviewer: Yeah. And then some teams do it as a team-building and they all take their day together. Some don’t.
Respondent: My girlfriend’s company do that and they’re definitely not responsible in any way whatsoever.
Interviewer: Really? (Laughs)
Respondent: (Inaudible 00:19:35). Well they’re bound to say they are but they’re definitely not; they haven’t made like environmental policies.
Interviewer: Is she still working in travel?
Respondent: She’s about to have a baby, we’re about to have a baby so she’s (over speaking) –
Interviewer: Ah congratulations!
Respondent: Thank you. So like she’s on maternity leave at the moment, so...
Interviewer: Yeah. Is this the first one?
Respondent: Yeah.
Interviewer: That’s exciting.
272
Respondent: Mm, really exciting, yeah. Due on Sunday apparently, so...
Interviewer: Ooh! We’ll see if it’s on time.
Respondent: Yeah, I know, I don’t think it will be but it’s quite exciting. But, yeah, so she works in travel, a company called [company name], who are a big beast of a company and they own lots of different brands. They’re not responsible. (Whispering) But they have that volunteer day. But my girlfriend who is very responsible, I don’t think she even ever took it because it’s so bloody busy –
Interviewer: Yeah, do you have the time.
Respondent: Yeah, you know, it’s fine to take holiday days but to take another day off that isn’t really a holiday day then I think... I don’t know. I’d be interested in the uptake.
Respondent: And those companies that do the volunteer days, do they provide examples of things you can go and volunteer at as well?
Interviewer: Yeah, they give ideas. You can do whatever you want... And I’m not sure if you have to have it approved or not or if you can just say, “This is what I’m doing,” but they do have suggestions.
Respondent: You have to show evidence of what you’ve done?
Interviewer: Yeah, I would imagine you have to produce some kind of proof. (Laughing) But they’ve done a range, just anything you can imagine, which is interesting because I find some people say, “It’s just not a charity I care about,”…
Respondent: I don’t know if I’d do it if I had a volunteer day.
Interviewer: I like to think in theory I would but I’m not sure once I got stuck into work if I would.
Respondent: I don’t know what I would do. You know, if I really wanted to volunteer and actually wanted to do it –
Interviewer: Would you do it outside of work, (over speaking) –
Respondent: And I’ve got Saturdays and Sundays, I’ve got every evening, you know, it’s not that I’m so exhausted by the weekend I can’t work; if I wanted to do that I could do it. So why would...? That’s the way I sort of see it, if I wanted to do that I would do it, so why do I have to get given a day off one day (inaudible 00:21:58)?
Interviewer: I think I’d be more willing if my whole team went and we said, “Yeah, we’re doing our volunteer day, it’s cleaning up the river,” or painting a school or something, then I’d go as like team bonding and something fun to do with co-workers.
273
Respondent: Yeah, that’d be different, cleaning out a river – God, that would be awful. (Laughs)
Interviewer: Yeah, as I said it I was like, “I’m not sure I want to put waders on and climb into a river”. (Laughing)
Respondent: I’ll tell Caroline you’re up for that, “We want a day off –
Interviewer: “(Inaudible 00:22:21) wants to go and clean the river.” (Laughing)
Respondent: “- to go and clean the river for the day”.
Interviewer: No thank you.
Respondent: (Laughs) Nice to have a nice day out in Guildford cleaning the river.
Interviewer: Yeah, delightful. (Laughs)
Respondent: Yeah, so I’d be interested to hear about that, (over speaking).
Interviewer: Yeah, I’ll give you guys a summary, so...
Respondent: I don’t know how we’d trial it because I honestly believe that volunteering is all talk and people say (inaudible 00:22:40).
Interviewer: Yeah, I’d be quite curious.
Respondent: Hmm, I would too. But we’ll see.
Interviewer: Yeah.
Respondent: I don’t know if there’s anything else you want to ask me?
Interviewer: I think that’s everything. [Sarah] obviously has all my contact details so if you do think of anything I’m more than happy for you to shoot me an email.
Respondent: How long have you got left in your PhD?
Interviewer: About seven or eight months.
Respondent: Okay. So this is your main... I suppose the PhD’s just the whole project (over speaking).
Interviewer: Yeah, it’s the whole project. Yeah. So I’m in the final stretch.
Respondent: What’s the title of the whole dissertation?
Interviewer: ‘Reaching the Hard to Reach, CSR and Employee Engagement.’
Respondent: So it’s mainly about people who aren’t interested basically, the main thing is about who (over speaking) –
Interviewer: That was the initial focus but actually it’s shifted quite a lot.
274
Respondent: Because you haven’t found many people?
Interviewer: Yeah. And I think it’s actually come out that it’s more important to understand how things work as an organisation rather than focusing on the disengaged employees, that you have to have the organisational embeddedness(?) and culture and stuff sorted first before you can even deal with the rest.
Respondent: Definitely.
Interviewer: And I didn’t anticipate that. So, yeah, it’s shifted the focus quite a lot but...
Respondent: Mm, that’s interesting. Yeah, because you can’t say, “Oh you’ve got to be more interested,” if you don’t have company core values (over speaking).
Interviewer: Well exactly, yeah. And things like I didn’t think leadership would come up quite as much as it did and that’s turned out to be like a key finding that if your managers tells you to do it but doesn’t do it themselves –
Respondent: Yeah, you’re not interested, you’re not engaged (over speaking).
Interviewer: Yeah, so that’s more of an organisational issue rather than the individual employee.
Respondent: Which is interesting to hear because there’s definitely some managers who are much more engaged than others. Some of them wouldn’t be able to tell you anything about responsible tourism or being a sustainable company and others (over speaking) –
Interviewer: Definitely can, yeah.
Respondent: Yeah, definitely, and you’ve probably seen that from your research.
Interviewer: Yeah. So it’s a different finding that I anticipated but more interesting, I think, so that’s alright.
Respondent: Cool. Oh that’s awesome, it sounds really interesting.
Interviewer: Yeah.
Respondent: I’d love to read it.
Interviewer: Yeah, you’re welcome to, it’s going to be a solid thing when I’m finished. (Laughing)
Respondent: I’m not sure how I’ll get through 80,000 words but –
Interviewer: You can skim it.
Respondent: - I can skim bits of it, yeah, the theoretical side I’ll skip through and (over speaking) the findings.
Interviewer: Yeah, skip that. (Laughs)
275
Respondent: No, I’d be really interested to read it. So once you get it done and once it’s all out and you’ve done your viva and all that sort of stuff then send it through.
Interviewer: Yeah.
Respondent: Cool.
Interviewer: You’ll get a copy.
Respondent: Thank you very much.
Interviewer: Perfect. Well thank you very much for your time, I really appreciate it.
Respondent: No, absolutely pleasure, really enjoyed it. Thank you very much.
Interviewer: Take a brownie for the road, please.
Respondent: No worries.
Interviewer: Clear them out. (Laughing)
Respondent: Cheers. Thanks a lot.
Interviewer: See you later.
Respondent: Yeah, good luck.
276
Appendix C: Information and Consent Letter
[DATE]
LETTER OF INFORMATION FOR CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Title of the study: CSR and Employee Engagement in Tourism
Introduction
I would like to invite you to take part in a research project. Before you decide, you need to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve for you. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Talk to others about the study if you wish.
What is the purpose of the study?
This study seeks to explore employee engagement in corporate responsibility/sustainability projects. This includes such things as volunteer days, recycling schemes, or fundraising for charity.
Participation and Withdrawal
You may choose to participate in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without giving a reason and without any adverse consequences. The researcher may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
Your involvement in this study will require you to participate in a brief interview, lasting between 30-60 minutes, which will take place either at the workplace or over the phone.
Confidentiality
Any information that is obtained in connection to this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission.
All information will be anonymised so that those reading reports from the research will not know who has contributed to it.
Contact Details of Researcher
Kelsy Hejjas
Thank you for taking the time to read this Information Sheet.
277
Consent Form
By signing this consent form, you are not waiving your legal rights or releasing the investigator(s) or involved institution(s) from their legal and professional responsibilities.
I have read the information presented in the information sheet provided about this study being conducted by Kelsy Hejjas of the Department of Hospitality and Tourism at the University of Surrey, under the supervision of Dr. Caroline Scarles. I have had an opportunity to ask any questions related to this study, to receive satisfactory answers to my questions, and any additional details I wanted.
I am aware that my interview will be audio recorded to ensure an accurate recording of my responses.
I am also aware that excerpts from this interview may be included in the thesis and/or publications to come from the research, with the understanding that quotations will be either anonymous or attributed to me only with my review and approval.
I was informed that I may withdraw my consent at any time without penalty by advising the researcher.
With full knowledge of all foregoing, I the undersigned voluntarily agree to take part in this study.
I have read and understood the Information Sheet provided. I have been given a full explanation by the investigators of the nature, purpose, location and likely duration of the study, and of what I will be expected to do. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions on all aspects of the study and have understood the advice and information given as a result.
I agree to have the interview and any follow up telephone conversations audio-recorded.
I agree to the use of anonymous quotations in any thesis or publications that comes of this research.
I consent to my personal data, as outlined in the accompanying information sheet, being used for this study and other research. I understand that all personal data relating to volunteers is held and processed in the strictest confidence, and in accordance with the Data Protection Act (1998).
I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time without needing to justify my decision and without prejudice.
I confirm that I have read and understood the above and freely consent to participating in this study. I have been given adequate time to consider my participation and agree to comply with the instructions and restrictions of the study.
Name of volunteer (BLOCK CAPITALS) ......................................................
Signed ......................................................
Date .....................................................
278
Appendix D: Ethical Consent Form
279
