Corporate Social Responsibility for Organizational Resilience: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Alfred Zheng and Version 1 by Paraskevi (Evi) Dekoulou.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been found to be important in boosting organizations’ sustainability and resilience against crisis. An organization seeks to satisfy its shareholders as a primary concern, its success can be affected by other stakeholders. Organizational CSR programs should not only take into account customers, suppliers, and other external stakeholders [21] but also include internal activities in which employees can participate.

  • CSR
  • job performance

1. Introduction

The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become increasingly prominent in a growing number of countries in recent years, and it continues attracting intense attention from both academics and practitioners in many industries [1,2,3][1][2][3]. In response to societal pressure and ethical obligations, more and more organizations are seeking to exhibit their commitment to CSR principles and are putting increasing emphasis on the social impact of their activity [4,5][4][5]. Future organizations could severely jeopardize their survival if they do not effectively integrate CSR in their corporate strategy and culture [6,7][6][7]. Engagement in CSR activities has been shown to be a reliable indicator of how resilient an organization is to the COVID-19 pandemic’s external shock [8]. In addition, according to Harwood et al. [9], CSR programs seem to have the capacity to endure pressure, shock, or change brought on by conflicting priorities and/or resource limitations in an organization. Therefore, it appears that CSR is not only an organizational activity resilient to crises and external pressures [9] but also an activity that helps organizations foster their resilience and cope with and recover from external threats [10,11,12,13,14,15][10][11][12][13][14][15].

2. Corporate Social Responsibility for Organizational Resilience

2.1. Examining Human Resource Management Benefits of CSR Perceptions

Contemporary organizations are increasingly aware of the strategic significance of CSR to improve their business decisions and results [42,43,44][16][17][18]. The notion of CSR entails not only compliance with legislation but also ongoing contributions to society’s well-being; thus, CSR initiatives impact not only profit seeking groups such as shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the local community [23][19]. Organizations can enact both internal CSR practices related to improving working conditions and external CSR practices related to environmental protection and economic and social development [45][20]. Organizations that have integrated CSR into their strategy are regarded more favorably by stakeholders. CSR and the concept of stakeholder theory can be regarded as critical notions when inquiring about the role of business in society, and their relationship has been studied for many decades [46][21]. According to stakeholder theory, managers are required to take into account the values, wants, and expectations of their key stakeholders [47][22], i.e., any individual or group that can affect or be affected by the organization’s activity. An organization’s value and performance can be critically affected by the strategic actions organized to satisfy the interests and expectations of different stakeholder groups [48,49][23][24]. More specifically, CSR actions focusing on the well-being of the internal stakeholders (e.g., employees, managers), the most influential groups in an organization [50][25], could strengthen employee performance and loyalty, which in turn could boost the organization’s financial performance [51,52][26][27]. Moreover, employees can significantly impact external stakeholders’ perceptions about the organization, favorably affecting the corporate image and reputation as well as customer satisfaction [53,54][28][29]. Employees appreciate working for organizations that are regarded as ethical, in terms of both how they treat their employees and how they engage with the community [55][30]. Since employees are crucial to an organization’s success, their positive attitude and the support of organizational actions are of critical interest to the upper management [56][31]. According to the stakeholder approach, organizations are expected to play a prolific role in broader society by investing in CSR actions. Employee perceptions of CSR activities can be defined as the degree to which employees perceive that an organization supports activities related to society’s well-being [57][32]. The present study has adopted an approach with three dimensions of employee perceptions of CSR activities: philanthropic CSR, ethical CSR, and environmental CSR [58][33]. The first CSR dimension, philanthropy, can be described as the voluntary offering of resources to solve social problems and benefit or help people and local communities without pursuing personal gains. Ethical CSR entails practices that improve the workplace and enforce fairer treatment for employees in ways that go above and beyond what an organization is legally required to do [59][34]. Finally, environmental CSR is related to the impact of an organization’s actions on the ecosystem and the need for constant efforts to reduce the eventual damaging effects of business processes on the natural environment [60][35]. HRM can significantly contribute to the development as well as the execution of CSR strategies due to its growing critical influence on an organization’s relationships with employees [61,62][36][37]. Sustainability in the workplace is becoming an issue of increasing significance for human resource management [63][38]. The way employees view CSR actions can influence the perceptions of the organization and could lead to changes in their behavior [64][39]. Aguilera et al. [65][40] underline that employees’ perceptions of firms’ CSR posture positively affect their willingness to participate in and contribute to firms’ activities. Perceptions of CSR practices influence both employee attitudes and behaviors [66,67][41][42]. Branco and Rodrigues [68][43] have associated CSR activities with a significant number of internal benefits: (i) increased staff motivation, morale, commitment, and loyalty to the organization, (ii) reduced staff turnover, (iii) positive employee attitudes regarding workplace quality, and (iv) improved job performance and operational efficiency. Valentine and Fleischman [55][30] and Mansour et al. [36][44] have found a positive correlation between perceptions of CSR and job satisfaction. Ali et al. [1] and Shaikh et al. [69][45] highlight a favorable relationship between perceptions of CSR and employee commitment, while other studies have linked such perceptions directly with employee performance [28,70,71,72][46][47][48][49]. Confirming the positive impact of CSR on employee commitment and morale, Porter and Kramer [19][50] stress that employees appear willing to work harder and for less when they work for socially responsible organizations. Similar studies have linked high CSR performance with increased employer attractiveness [73][51].

2.2. Psychological Empowerment and Its Implications on HRM Outcomes

Psychological capital and empowerment can be regarded as the keys to better understanding the enablers for building a sustainable workplace [74][52]. Empowerment can be described as a psychological phenomenon that should be felt by employees instead of obliging them to be empowered. Oladipo [75][53] portrays psychological empowerment as an individual’s cognitive state characterized by perceived control, competence, and goal internalization. Psychological empowerment entails employee perceptions of the extent to which they can perform their work in an independent and self-effective way [76][54]. Seibert et al. [77][55] consider it as an “intrinsic task motivation reflecting a sense of control in relation to one’s work and an active orientation to one’s work role” (p. 981). Maynard et al. [78][56] stress that psychological empowerment is a state of consciousness perceived by employees and reflects employee perceptions, wants, and feelings about the possibilities of shaping their work role. It is not something that an organization does or imposes on its employees but a frame of mind that staff members have regarding their role in the organization, a type of intrinsic motivation. Psychological empowerment manifests in four major dimensions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact [79][57]. Meaning describes how well employee perceptions and values fit job requirements. Competence reflects the degree of confidence regarding employees’ skills, enabling them to fulfill his/her duties successfully [80][58]. Self-determination describes employees’ sense of having a choice to initiate and regulate work processes. Impact describes the degree to which an employee believes that they can influence activities and outcomes at work [81][59].

2.3. Job Performance

Human capital is a major source of competitiveness for contemporary organizations [82][60], a significant contributor to increased organizational performance [23][19], and a central pillar of success [83][61] and organizational resilience [84][62]. Employees show that the quality of products/services and their well-being are related to job performance [25][63]. Employee performance can be defined as the degree to which the level of one’s productivity meets the organization’s standards of performance [85][64]; it is related to one’s ability to effectively perform a certain job compared to what the employee is expected to do [86][65]. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment have an impact on transformational leadership with respect to employee performance. Individual performance refers to employee results and behaviors that are associated with and contribute to organizational goals [87][66] and entails that all employees’ work achievements are accomplished in the process of undertaking work responsibilities [88][67]. Employee performance can be categorized into in-role behavior, referring to task performance, and extra-role behavior, referring to contextual performance [89][68]. Task performance includes behaviors and outcomes achieved by employees instead of the monetary benefits they receive [90][69]. Contextual performance entails roles and voluntary actions that are not officially prescribed but contribute to the social and psychological core of an organization and generate great corporate benefits [91][70].

References

  1. Ali, H.Y.; Asrar-ul-Haq, M.; Amin, S.; Noor, S.; Haris-ul-Mahasbi, M.; Aslam, M.K. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Performance: The Mediating Role of Employee Engagement in the Manufacturing Sector of Pakistan. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2908–2919.
  2. Chaudhary, R. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Performance: A Study among Indian Business Executives. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 2761–2784.
  3. Kiliç, M.; Kuzey, C.; Uyar, A. The Impact of Ownership and Board Structure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting in the Turkish Banking Industry. Corp. Gov. 2015, 15, 357–374.
  4. Adu-Gyamfi, M.; He, Z.; Nyame, G.; Boahen, S.; Frempong, M.F. Effects of Internal CSR Activities on Social Performance: The Employee Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6235.
  5. Moratis, L. The Credibility of Corporate CSR Claims: A Taxonomy Based on ISO 26000 and a Research Agenda. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2017, 28, 147–158.
  6. Melo, T.; Garrido-Morgado, A. Corporate Reputation: A Combination of Social Responsibility and Industry: Corporate Reputation as a Result of Multidimensional CSR. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2012, 19, 11–31.
  7. Arabeche, Z.; Soudani, A.; Brahmi, M.; Aldieri, L.; Vinci, C.P.; Abdelli, M.E.A. Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Culture and Business Performance in SMEs: Evidence from Emerging Economy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5160.
  8. Huang, W.; Chen, S.; Nguyen, L.T. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Resilience to COVID-19 Crisis: An Empirical Study of Chinese Firms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8970.
  9. Harwood, I.; Humby, S.; Harwood, A. On the Resilience of Corporate Social Responsibility. Eur. Manag. J. 2011, 29, 283–290.
  10. Johannessen, Å.; Rosemarin, A.; Thomalla, F.; Gerger Swartling, Å.; Axel Stenström, T.; Vulturius, G. Strategies for Building Resilience to Hazards in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Systems: The Role of Public Private Partnerships. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014, 10, 102–115.
  11. Rodríguez-Sánchez, A.; Guinot, J.; Chiva, R.; López-Cabrales, Á. How to Emerge Stronger: Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Resilience. J. Manag. Organ. 2021, 27, 442–459.
  12. Peña-Miranda, D.D.; Guevara-Plaza, A.; Fraiz-Brea, J.A.; Camilleri, M.A. Corporate Social Responsibility Model for a Competitive and Resilient Hospitality Industry. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 433–446.
  13. Kanji, R.; Agrawal, R. Exploring the Use of Corporate Social Responsibility in Building Disaster Resilience through Sustainable Development in India: An Interpretive Structural Modelling Approach. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2020, 6, 100089.
  14. Chen, C.-D.; Su, C.-H.J.; Chen, M.-H. Are ESG-Committed Hotels Financially Resilient to the COVID-19 Pandemic? An Autoregressive Jump Intensity Trend Model. Tour. Manag. 2022, 93, 104581.
  15. Han, Z.; Jiang, S.; Zheng, Z.; Jin, Y. Doing Good Right: Building Resilience through Donations during the Pandemic. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2023. ahead-of-print.
  16. Newman, A.; Nielsen, I.; Miao, Q. The Impact of Employee Perceptions of Organizational Corporate Social Responsibility Practices on Job Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Evidence from the Chinese Private Sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 26, 1226–1242.
  17. Siegel, D.S.; Vitaliano, D.F. An Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Use of Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 2007, 16, 773–792.
  18. Franzoni, S.; Sarwar, H.; Ishaq, M.I. The Mediating Role of HRM in the Relationship between CSR and Performance in the Hospitality Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13699.
  19. Silva, P.; Moreira, A.C.; Mota, J. Employees’ Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility and Performance: The Mediating Roles of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Organizational Trust. J. Strat. Manag. 2023, 16, 92–111.
  20. Turker, D. How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Organizational Commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 89, 189–204.
  21. Kakabadse, N.K.; Rozuel, C.; Lee-Davies, L. Corporate Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Approach: A Conceptual Review. Int. J. Bus. Gov. Ethics 2005, 1, 277.
  22. Taghian, M.; D’Souza, C.; Polonsky, M. A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation and Business Performance. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 340–363.
  23. Ferrell, O.C.; Gonzalez-Padron, T.L.; Hult, G.T.M.; Maignan, I. From Market Orientation to Stakeholder Orientation. J. Public Policy Mark. 2010, 29, 93–96.
  24. Wing-Hung Lo, C.; Fryxell, G.E.; Tang, S.-Y. Stakeholder Pressures from Perceived Environmental Impacts and the Effect on Corporate Environmental Management Programmes in China. Environ. Politics 2010, 19, 888–909.
  25. Rupp, D.E.; Ganapathi, J.; Aguilera, R.V.; Williams, C.A. Employee Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: An Organizational Justice Framework. J. Organiz. Behav. 2006, 27, 537–543.
  26. De Roeck, K.; Marique, G.; Stinglhamber, F.; Swaen, V. Understanding Employees’ Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility: Mediating Roles of Overall Justice and Organisational Identification. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 91–112.
  27. Berniak-Woźny, J.; Kwasek, A.; Gąsiński, H.; Maciaszczyk, M.; Kocot, M. Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility in Small and Medium Enterprises—Employees’ Perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1660.
  28. Javed, M.; Rashid, M.A.; Hussain, G.; Ali, H.Y. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Reputation and Firm Financial Performance: Moderating Role of Responsible Leadership. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. 2020, 27, 1395–1409.
  29. Singal, M. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry: Do Family Control and Financial Condition Matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 81–89.
  30. Valentine, S.; Fleischman, G. Ethics Programs, Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Satisfaction. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 77, 159–172.
  31. Spitzeck, H.; Hansen, E.G. Stakeholder Governance: How Stakeholders Influence Corporate Decision Making. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2010, 10, 378–391.
  32. Lee, E.M.; Park, S.-Y.; Lee, H.J. Employee Perception of CSR Activities: Its Antecedents and Consequences. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1716–1724.
  33. Carroll, A.B. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497.
  34. Nussbaum, A.K. Ethical Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Happy Couple? J. Med. Mark. 2009, 9, 67–76.
  35. Babiak, K.; Trendafilova, S. CSR and Environmental Responsibility: Motives and Pressures to Adopt Green Management Practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18, 11–24.
  36. El Akremi, A.; Gond, J.-P.; Swaen, V.; De Roeck, K.; Igalens, J. How Do Employees Perceive Corporate Responsibility? Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility Scale. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 619–657.
  37. Jamali, D.R.; El Dirani, A.M.; Harwood, I.A. Exploring Human Resource Management Roles in Corporate Social Responsibility: The CSR-HRM Co-Creation Model. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2015, 24, 125–143.
  38. Khusanova, R.; Choi, S.B.; Kang, S.-W. Sustainable Workplace: The Moderating Role of Office Design on the Relationship between Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Uzbekistan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7024.
  39. Turner, M.R.; McIntosh, T.; Reid, S.W.; Buckley, M.R. Corporate Implementation of Socially Controversial CSR Initiatives: Implications for Human Resource Management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2019, 29, 125–136.
  40. Aguilera, R.V.; Rupp, D.E.; Williams, C.A.; Ganapathi, J. Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 836–863.
  41. Santana, M.; Morales-Sánchez, R.; Pasamar, S. Mapping the Link between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Human Resource Management (HRM): How Is This Relationship Measured? Sustainability 2020, 12, 1678.
  42. You, C.-S.; Huang, C.-C.; Wang, H.-B.; Liu, K.-N.; Lin, C.-H.; Tseng, J.-S. The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment. Int. J. Organ. Innov. 2013, 5, 65.
  43. Branco, M.C.; Rodrigues, L.L. Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 69, 111–132.
  44. Mansour, M.; Alaghbari, M.A.; Beshr, B.; Al-Ghazali, B.M. Perceived CSR on Career Satisfaction: A Moderated Mediation Model of Cultural Orientation (Collectivism and Masculinity) and Organisational Pride. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5288.
  45. Shaikh, E.; Brahmi, M.; Thang, P.C.; Watto, W.A.; Trang, T.T.N.; Loan, N.T. Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining the Turnover Intentions with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Organizational Identification and Organizational Commitment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6030.
  46. Story, J.S.P.; Castanheira, F. Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Performance: Mediation Role of Job Satisfaction and Affective Commitment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1361–1370.
  47. Montgomery, D.B.; Ramus, C.A. Calibrating MBA Job Preferences for the 21st Century. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2011, 10, 9–26.
  48. Reklitis, P.; Trivellas, P.; Mantzaris, I.; Mantzari, E.; Reklitis, D. Employee Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities and Work-Related Attitudes: The Case of a Greek Management Services Organization. In Sustainability and Social Responsibility: Regulation and Reporting; Gal, G., Akisik, O., Wooldridge, W., Eds.; Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance & Fraud: Theory and Application; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 225–240. ISBN 978-981-10-4502-8.
  49. Trivellas, P.; Rafailidis, A.; Polychroniou, P.; Dekoulou, P. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Its Internal Consequences on Job Performance: The Influence of Corporate Ethical Values. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2019, 11, 265–282.
  50. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 78–92.
  51. Kim, H.; Hur, W.-M.; Yeo, J. Corporate Brand Trust as a Mediator in the Relationship between Consumer Perception of CSR, Corporate Hypocrisy, and Corporate Reputation. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3683–3694.
  52. Kariri, H.D.H.; Radwan, O.A. The Influence of Psychological Capital on Individual’s Social Responsibility through the Pivotal Role of Psychological Empowerment: A Study Towards a Sustainable Workplace Environment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2720.
  53. Oladipo, S.E. Psychological Empowerment and Development. Edo J. Couns. 2009, 2, 118–126.
  54. Spreitzer, G.M. Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 1442–1465.
  55. Seibert, S.E.; Wang, G.; Courtright, S.H. Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological and Team Empowerment in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 981–1003.
  56. Maynard, M.T.; Gilson, L.L.; Mathieu, J.E. Empowerment—Fad or Fab? A Multilevel Review of the Past Two Decades of Research. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 1231–1281.
  57. Spreitzer, G.M. Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 483–504.
  58. Dewettinck, K.; Van Ameijde, M. Linking Leadership Empowerment Behaviour to Employee Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions: Testing the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment. Pers. Rev. 2011, 40, 284–305.
  59. Zhou, H.; Chen, J. How Does Psychological Empowerment Prevent Emotional Exhaustion? Psychological Safety and Organizational Embeddedness as Mediators. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 546687.
  60. Campbell, B.A.; Coff, R.; Kryscynski, D. Rethinking Sustained Competitive Advantage from Human Capital. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2012, 37, 376–395.
  61. Mishra, S.; Singh, S.; Tripathy, P. Linkage Between Employee Satisfaction and Employee Performance: A Case in Banking Industry. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020, 0, 097215092097035.
  62. Douglas, S. Building Organizational Resilience through Human Capital Management Strategy. Dev. Learn. Organ. Int. J. 2021, 35, 19–21.
  63. Lee, Y.-K.; Kim, Y.S.; Lee, K.H.; Li, D. The Impact of CSR on Relationship Quality and Relationship Outcomes: A Perspective of Service Employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 745–756.
  64. Diamantidis, A.D.; Chatzoglou, P. Factors Affecting Employee Performance: An Empirical Approach. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2019, 68, 171–193.
  65. Eliyana, A.; Ma’arif, S. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Effect in the Transformational Leadership towards Employee Performance. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2019, 25, 144–150.
  66. Vel, V.; Park, I.; Liu, J. The Effect of Enterprise Crowdsourcing Systems on Employees’ Innovative Behavior and Job Performance. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2018 (HICSS-51), Hilton Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, 3–6 January 2018.
  67. Jalalkamali, M.; Ali, A.J.; Hyun, S.S.; Nikbin, D. Relationships between Work Values, Communication Satisfaction, and Employee Job Performance: The Case of International Joint Ventures in Iran. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 796–814.
  68. Goodman, S.A.; Svyantek, D.J. Person–Organization Fit and Contextual Performance: Do Shared Values Matter. J. Vocat. Behav. 1999, 55, 254–275.
  69. Yang, C.-L.; Hwang, M. Personality Traits and Simultaneous Reciprocal Influences between Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2014, 8, 6–26.
  70. Ingusci, E.; Spagnoli, P.; Zito, M.; Colombo, L.; Cortese, C. Seeking Challenges, Individual Adaptability and Career Growth in the Relationship between Workload and Contextual Performance: A Two-Wave Study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 422.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback