Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms
| Author | Claudio Aqueveque,Ignacio J. Duran,Pablo Rodrigo |
| Published date | 01 October 2019 |
| Date | 01 October 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12227 |
Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2019;28:459–475. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer
|
459
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
1 | INTRODUCTION
In a world riddled with socio‐environmental problems, stakehold‐
ers oftentim es resort to companies for sol utions (Ferraro, Etzion, &
Gehman, 2015). Fi rms have respond ed by implementi ng corporate
social respons ibility (CSR ) initiatives to o btain a competi tive edge
(Scherer & Palaz zo, 2011), making CSR an im portant di mension for
companies (Fry nas & Yamahaki, 2016). Consid ering this, a st rand
coined “micro‐CSR” has received vast attention, which focuses on
studying individuals’ psychological processes that underpin CSR
(Gond, Akrem i, Swaen, & Babu, 2017). In thi s tradition, schol ars have
overlooked inqui ries on employees (De Ro eck & Maon, 2018; Glavas ,
2016), although recent ly this has receive d more attentio n (e.g.,
Ghosh, 2018; Haski‐ Leventhal, Roza, & M eijs, 2017). Most ar ticles
focus on workers’ re actions to CSR progra ms, and consequences on
one attitude h ave predominated as various pap ers report a positive
link between C SR perceptions and organ izational commitment (e.g.,
Brammer, Milling ton, & Rayton, 2 007; Hofman & Newman , 2014;
Mueller, Hattru p, Spiess, & Lin‐Hi, 2012). This is sig nificant because
this attitude is linked to higher productivity and reduced turnover/
absenteeism (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).
However, all works in this s train measure e mployee percep ‐
tions of socio‐env ironmental initiative s in a non‐strategic fashi on.
This entails eva luating this cons truct rega rdless of how worker s
perceive the match b etween fir ms’ CSR and busin ess‐unit strat‐
egy (i.e., “str ategy‐CSR f it”). Recent de velopments in t his tradi‐
tion only diff erentiate bet ween employee eva luations of social ,
environmenta l, or philanthr opic CSR (e.g., G lavas & Kelley, 2014;
Lee, Park, & Le e, 2013) or internal ver sus external C SR (e.g., De
Roeck & Maon, 2018; Ha meed, Riaz, Arain, & Farooq, 2016). Yet,
no article has s tudied the effect of e mployee perceptions of st rat‐
egy‐CSR fi t on organizati onal commitmen t. This is unfor tunate
Received:7Augu st2017
|
Revised:23Dece mber2018
|
Accepted:26Dece mber2018
DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12227
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective
organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms
Pablo Rodrigo1 | Claudio Aqueveque1 | Ignacio J. Duran2
1Escuela de Negocios, Universidad Adolfo
Ibáñez, Viña del Mar, Chile
2Institute fo r Social Innovation , ESADE
Business School—Ramon Llull University,
Barcelona, Spain
Correspondence
Pablo Rodrigo, Escuela de Negocios,
Universida d Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. Padr e
Hurtado 750 , Viña del Mar, Región de
Valparaíso, Chile.
Email: prodrigo@uai.cl
Abstract
Virtually all s tudies that focus on the relationshi p between CSR perceptions and e m‐
ployees’ organizatio nal commitment have not ta ken into consideration th e fit be‐
tween social and env ironmental activities and a fir m’s business‐unit strateg y. This is
essential to inquire b ecause scholars have argued that when co mpanies ingrain CSR
activities into t heir strategy‐ma king process (i.e., in th eir vision, mission, a nd overall
business model), th is might send a more compelling message t hat resonates closer to
workers’ personal standards, and actually enhance employee‐level outcomes.
Nevertheless , there is no certainty “if” a nd “how” these evaluations could affe ct em‐
ployees’ organizatio nal commitment. To address t his issue, we use cue consiste ncy
theory and so cial identity the ory as overarchin g frameworks to devel op a model
where we conceptually li nk perceptions of strategy‐CSR f it with a particular type of
organizational com mitment: affective. In additi on, we posit and test three mediators
to understand t he underlying ps ychological mech anisms of this relationsh ip: per‐
ceived external prestige, organizational identification, and work meaningfulness.
Through struc tural equation m odeling, and using a h eterogeneous final s ample of
579 employees, we find comp elling evidence to supp ort the fac t that strategy‐C SR
fit enhances empl oyees’ affective organizational com mitment through the proposed
mediators. Academic contributions and practical implications are then discussed.
460
|
RODRIGO et al.
as scholars have ar gued that CSR p rograms shou ld stem from
firms’ strategy to achieve a sustained competitive advantage
(McWilliams, Parhankangas, Coupet, Welch, & Barnum, 2016;
McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006). This implies ingraining key
stakeholders’ demands into a company’s mission and key activ‐
ities (Porter & K ramer, 2006; Vallas ter, 2017), to improve com‐
petitive posit ioning (Miles, M unilla, & Darroc h, 2006), and bu ild
unique resour ces (Orlitzk y, Siegel, & Waldman, 2011) so C SR be‐
comes a profita bility source ( Michelon, Bo esso, & Kumar, 2013).
Neverthele ss, it is uncer tain “if” and “h ow” workers’ perc eptions
of strategic CS R affect org anizational co mmitment. Th is is be‐
cause micro‐ CSR works have hig hlighted that not eve ry type of
socio‐environmental initiative necessarily influences employees.
Qualitative evidence suggests that employee engagement is more
effective w hen an alignment b etween CSR a nd firm attr ibutes
(e.g., strateg y, processes) is sense d (e.g., Haski‐Leve nthal et al.,
2017; Mason & Simmons, 2013; Mir vis, 2012; Slack , Corlett , &
Morris, 2015). De spite these findings, no so lid conceptual frame‐
work or evidence up holds that st rategic CSR af fects org aniza‐
tional commitm ent. Therefore, our res earch question is: How does
perceiving a strategy‐CSR fit influence employees’ organizational
commitment?
Our purpose is t hus to theorize an d verify if empl oyee attribu‐
tions of strateg y‐CSR fit af fect this at titudinal cons truct, an d to
inquire the underlying mechanisms of this association. Using cue
consistency t heory and so cial identit y theory as a bas is, our asser‐
tion is that sensin g this type of re sponsible init iatives enhance s a
specific ty pe of organizat ional commitme nt. The ration ale is that
strategy‐C SR fit implies a persu asive message that sends a cl ear cue
to employees: that companies are addressing the most important
stakeholde r demands, and t hus are acting r ightfully. We posit th at
these signals re sonate closer to worker s’ standards and exp ectations
of firms’ socio‐e nvironmental responsibi lities, forming an emotion al
employee‐firm bond that positively affects their affective organi‐
zational commit ment. Furthermore, we pro pose three mediators to
delve into this relationship: perceived external prestige, organiza‐
tional identif ication, and work meaning fulness. To this end, we test
our hypothese s using struc tural equatio n modeling in a sa mple of
579 employees.
Our article co ntributes to the field in thr ee main ways. First, we
advance knowle dge by formally int egrating the no tion of strategi c
CSR in employee‐level micro‐CSR research, revealing its importance
because the se initiatives beget worker s that are affectively co mmit‐
ted to their orga nizations. Sec ond, we formally integrate cue con‐
sistency the ory in this strand, as thi s framework has generally be en
used in politic al science and ma rketing (e.g., Pete rsen, Slothu us, &
Togeby, 2010; Xu, Cai, & Kim, 2013). In this re gard, we combine i t
with social identity theory to propose a comprehensive understand‐
ing of workers’ psych ological reactions to s trategy‐CSR fit , and how
this perception enhances affective organizational commitment.
Third, by probing into this relationship, we disclose the actual un‐
derlying mec hanisms that bridge strateg y‐CSR fit to this specif ic at‐
titude in employees’ minds.
2 | THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
DEVELOPMENT
2.1 | Perceived C SR‐strategy fit and affective
organizational commitment
CSR is conceived a s voluntary a nd above‐the‐law soc io‐environ‐
mental practices that positively affect stakeholders (Dahlsrud,
2008). Alth ough scholar s have compelled ma nagers to appro ach
CSR strateg ically (McWilliams et al ., 2006, 2016), due to its disc re‐
tionary natu re, responsib le initiatives may h ave little relat ion to
firms’ activ ities (Schwartz & Car roll, 2003). According to Vallas ter
(2017), strategic C SR is the integrat ion of responsib le actions
into stakeholder management and core business processes. This
conception can b e broken down into t wo character istics. Fir st, it
entails that enterprises embed prioritized stakeholders’ demands
(i.e., most relevant parties being affected) into their responsibility
programs (Bel u & Manescu, 2013; Miles et al., 20 06). Second, that
these CSR end eavors should b e ingrained into t he entity’s mis‐
sion and overall bu siness model, s o the company alte rs its busi‐
ness‐unit stra tegy to be more socio‐environme ntally accountable
(Amran, Le e, & Devi, 2014; Michelon e t al., 2013). Strategic C SR
can then be und erstood as effort s deeply embedded in f irms’ core
activities , whose aim is to address corporat e responsibility issues
that affect key s takeholders (Aq ueveque, Rodrigo, & Dur an, 2018).
The idea is to enhan ce profitabil ity, insofar stra tegic CSR elici ts
a way of doing things di fferently to o utperfor m competitors a nd
obtain a compet itive advanta ge (Orlitzk y et al., 2011; Porter &
Kramer, 2006).
Nonetheless , despite the importance of s trategic CSR , scholars
have researched relationships between non‐strategic CSR percep‐
tions and organ izational comm itment (e.g., Glav as & Kelley, 2014;
Kim, Lee, Lee, & K im, 2010; Muelle r et al., 2012). That is, C SR is
conceived as socio ‐environment al actions th at are not necessa r‐
ily aligned with m ain stakehol der demands an d core business pro ‐
cesses. This is an i ssue because l iterature has sh own that strateg ic
CSR has distin ctive organizatio nal outcomes. For inst ance, Michelon
et al. (2013) show that com panies that ingrain sta keholder concerns
into their strategy‐making process outperform competitors. Amran
et al. (2014) evinces that s trategic CSR improve s the quality of enter‐
prises’ sustainability reports, while Vallaster (2017) determines that
these initiati ves help companies manage cris es. However, no article
has included the notion of strategic CSR in employee‐related micro‐
CSR research , so it is unclear if p erceiving a match b etween fir ms’
strategy an d responsible a ctivities ( hereafter, strat egy‐CSR f it) af‐
fects workers’ organizational commitment.
Like any attitud e, organizatio nal commitment i s built of three
interrelated com ponents: “cognit ion,” “affection ,” and “behav‐
ior”: so it must poss ess a set of belief s, emotions, an d a procliv‐
ity to act in a cer tain manner (Breckler, 1984; Chaiken & B aldwin,
1981). Meyer and colleagues ( Meyer, Allen, & Smith , 1993;
Meyer, Becker, & van Dick, 20 06; Meyer & Herscov itch, 2001;
Meyer, Paunonen, Ge llatly, Goffin, & J ackson, 1989) posit that
To continue reading
Request your trial