Corporate Social Responsibility Viewed from Above: A Review of Macro-CSR Research, Concepts and Controversies, and

Stakeholder-Targeted Practices

Ante Glavas, Kedge Business SchoolDiscussion Leader: Frances Milliken, New York University

Structure

Session goal: To briefly cover macro CSR and focus on a few questions for thought for the SIOP CSR Summit

Outline:

I. Unpacking + Defining CSR

II. Historical and Current Trends

III. Opportunities for CSR Summit

Notes: Will not go through a laundry list of factors at each level of analysis For detailed reviews see for example: Aguinis & Glavas (2014); Carroll

(1979, 1999, 2008); Garriga & Mele (2004, 2008); Waddock (2004)

Ia. Unpacking CSR

What is CSR?

Often use CSR as a buzz word

Intent of Session: Purpose is not to come up with one

overarching definition for SIOP Differences in perceptions of CSR

actually make micro-CSR more interesting (e.g., variance in perception of employees)

Rather intent is to build an understanding of a general framework within which we can explore different nuances (e.g., micro)

7 Blind Men and the Elephant

Source: Miller, M. S. (2012). Seven blind men and the elephant. The Northstar Journal, 5 (43). Downloaded from Nohttps://nsjour.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/seven-blind-men-and-the-elephant/

PresenterPresentation NotesWhen talking to each other, sometimes we have no idea what we are truly talking about when we mention CSRThis has implications for academia and also practice

What is CSR?

36 unique metrics (Peloza, 2009) Overlap between constructs (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Carroll,

1999; Frederick , 1998; Garriga & Mele, 2004; Waddock 2004) Science-Practice gap parallel universes (Waddock, 2004) Macro-Micro Divide only 4% of CSR articles include micro level

(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012) Numerous definitions and terms:

CSR, sustainability, ethics, sustainable development, corporate social performance, stakeholder theory, business and the natural environment, sustainable value, social entrepreneurship, social impact management, corporate reputation, business citizenship, corporate social responsiveness, corporate social rectitude, issues management, public responsibility, stakeholder management, corporate volunteering, strategic philanthropy

Opportunity: each business can define it specific to their own business (e.g., build on core competencies)

How Do We at the CSR Summit Define CSR?

In pairs discuss for 3-4 minutes (you will be assigned to one word):

What does each word within CSR mean to you? For example, are there different ways to define what a corporation is? Discuss each word within the context of for-profit organizations.

1. Corporate (or corporation)2. Social (e.g., what does social mean for a company, for society)3. Responsibility

Note: you can have multiple and even opposing definitions

what is CorporateDefinition: from Corpus in Latin: body of people Today in many countries, the corporation itself is sometimes perceived

itself as a person (e.g., legally, perceptions/expectations of stakeholders)

Even in CSR research, we sometimes focus on the macro forgetting that a corporation is made up of people who make decisions, carry out activities, etc.

Debates on what is a corporation Role of the firm (e.g., Berle, 1931; Dodd, 1932) Business of business is business (Friedman, 1970) Varies internationally (e.g., legally, culturally)

Perhaps corporate should be the easiest to understand in CSR, but even this word is abstract and open to debate/perception

what is SocialFrom a companys standpoint:

Who? Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) Do companies only focus on their stakeholders, ignore others? Different cultures (e.g., global corporation and diversity)

Why? Is the focus only on social if it can bring profit to a company?

How and implications for practice prosocial motivation and relational job design (e.g., Grant 2007, 2008)?

When? short-term, long-term (and how long is long-term)

Where? local, world (e.g., local company responsible for)

From societys standpoint: Carroll (1979, 1999) four pillars with discretionary defined by societal norms, Societal norms are constantly changing Therefore societal expectations of firms are constantly changing When we define CSR, that definition is only for the present generation

what is ResponsibilityResponsibility is the least explored term in CSR (Enderle, 2006)

What does responsibility even mean: Responsibility for what (content)? Responsibility towards whom (the subject)? Towards whom (authority) are corporations responsible? Who is held responsible? The corporation and/or individuals? Also When, Where, How?

Other related notes: Deontic ethics (e.g., applied in Ruggies framework) Ethics of intention vs. responsibility (Enderle, 2007 based on work of Weber)

Does responsibility truly exist in an instrumental view of CSR Agency theory - On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B (Kerr, 1975)

Can CSR ever succeed if short-term finance is primarily rewarded Freedom of deciding on responsibility / responsiveness (Frankl)

Do we have this freedom in current market conditions? Or is it just our perception that companies do not have this freedom (e.g., agency theory)

(Welcome) ConfusionPurpose is not to come up with one definition Perhaps not possible - akin to saying we need to have one global

view on what is right and wrong to do in society Debate on if ethics universal vs. relative

Creates issue with aggregation, meta-analyses, CSP-CFP quest Clarity on how we each define CSR Solution might be hypernorms (Donaldson & Dunfee)

Why one definition - that is operationalized -might be counterproductive: Each company can embed CSR so that it is built on the companys

core competencies Because perceptions vary, we need studies at the individual level

Ib. Defining CSRThree views: academic, practice, integrated

Adapted Multimotive Framework of CSR (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007)

Corporate Social Responsibility

Instrumental Profit Shareholders Agency theory

Relational Primarystakeholders (e.g., customers and employees)

Stakeholders (including secondarystakeholders)

Relational job design

Moral Well-being of people and planet

Society & planet (including tertiary stakeholders)

Deontic ethics

Note: takes place at all levels

Difference between Triple Bottom Line (3BL) and Sustainable Value (SV)

Triple bottom line is not integrated - you can be high in one area while low on another

a Sustainable Value approach means you are creating value for both the shareholder and stakeholders at the same time

Note that you need to create value for all key stakeholders - you cannot treat employees or society poorly while claiming to be a "sustainable company"

Chart1

3PeoplePeople

4.5PlanetPlanet

1.5ProfitProfit

Series 1

Series 2

Series 3

Sheet1

Series 1Series 2Series 3

People3

Planet4.5

Profit1.5

To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

SustainableValue

Stakeholder Value

Shareholder Value

+

+

-

- environmental, social,and economic impacts

Sustainable Value Partners 2007

Re-framing sustainability as value creation

SustainableValue

Unsustainable: Value transfer (1)

Stakeholder Value

Shareholder Value

+

+

-

-

Sustainable Value Partners 2007

SustainableValue

Stakeholder Value

Shareholder Value

+

+

-

-

Sustainable Value Partners 2007

Unsustainable: Value transfer (2)

SustainableValue

Stakeholder Value

Shareholder Value

+

+

-

-

OpportunitiesMore loyal customersMotivated employeesEnhanced reputationLicense to operateEntry into new markets

Sustainable Value Partners 2007

Sustainable value

A Systemic View of CSRLeaving planet and society at least as well off as we found it Is going beyond the law really CSR?

Represented in numerous definitions/approaches: development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Report, 1987)

The Natural Step: it might not be enough, we might need to give back much more than we take

II. Historical and Current Trends (brief overview)

Personal ReflectionPlease take out a piece of paper and during remainder of

presentation, take notes on

implications for micro and multilevel models of CSR

about potential research/practice areas of micro and multilevel CSR

personal research/practice you would like to do

Historical Overview CSR1 (19501960s) General approach: proposed that corporate managers

should act voluntarily and philanthropically as public trustees and social stewards.

CSR2 (19601970s) Pragmatic: broadened that idea to embrace legally-required corporate responses to many social demands.

CSR3 (19801990s) Proactive and ethics: called on businesses to develop ethical corporate cultures to support a wide range of stakeholders and communities through social contracts (note; not as accepted by scholars Waddock, 2004)

CSR4 (19902000s) Business as a calling: urged corporations to become global citizens heeding and correcting business's worldwide negative impacts on human societies and the natural environment; focus on meaningful work and bridging sciencepractice gap.

CSR5 (20002050) Multilevel models: holistic solutions that care for the well-being of all people

Source: Frederick (2016: 1): http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00129/full; also see Waddock (2004)

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00129/full

Trends, debates, controversiesElephant in room: What is agency and who are the agents? Debate previously only at macro level; what happens when we include micro level?

Instrumental, normative, integrated views (i.e., shareholder vs. stakeholder) Normative (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Goodpaster, 1991) Integrated (Jones & Wick, 1999; Swanson, 1995); avoiding separation

thesis (Freeman, 1994)

Symbolic vs. substantive CSR (cf. Meyer & Rowan, 1977) Symbolic different from strategic philanthropy (e.g., Petco Foundation;

South Africa minorities Aguinis & Glavas, 2013) When companies react to external pressure (e.g., activists), they often

engage in more symbolic CSR (David, Bloom, & Hillman, 2007)

Focus on socialfinancial (CSPCFP) relationship Gestalt of finding holy grail of CSR always being profitable Aggregation issue (i.e., variance of individuals ignored)

Embedded CSR (Aguinis & Glavas, 2013)

Macro (Low Integration)

Macro (High Integration)

Micro (Low Integration) Peripheral CSR Strategic Philanthropy

Micro (High Integration) CSRrelated job design (e.g., CSR officer; job crafting)

Completely Embedded

Note: see Laszlo & Zhexembayeva (2011)

Embedded CSR, Example 1: GE ecoimagination

Embedded in most divisions such as GE Energy, GE Technology, GE Home & Business

$85 billion in sales $50 billion backlog in sales Initiatives: Renewable energy: solar, wind, engines, hybrid locomotives Lighting Other: smart grid technologies; desalination and water reuse

solutions; photovoltaic cells

Embedded CSR, Example 2:IBM Smarter Planet

India and China alone will need 4-5 planet earths of resources (if we use current practices)

Builds on IBMs core competencies Initiatives: smart grids, water management systems,

traffic congestion, food waste, green building, healthcare systems

x

Embedded CSR, Example 3:DuPont

DuPont vision: to be the world's most dynamic science company, creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer and healthier life for people everywhere.

Uses core competencies of science and safety

Create 1,000 products that improve human safety

$10 billion in revenue from sustainable products

III. Opportunities for CSR Summit

Inconclusive findings of CSR-financial outcomes relationship (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Godfrey, Merrill, & Hansen, 2009; Graves, Lee, & Waddock, 2010; Lev, Petrovits, & Radhakrishnan, 2010; Peloza, 2009; Wood, 2010)

Gap: understanding underlying mechanisms of CSR (Aguilera et al., 2007; Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008; Rupp et al., 2013)

Prior Macro Research: Corporate Social Performance Corporate Financial Performance

Content analysis of 181 articles in top-tier journals (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012): Mediators: only 4% of studies (also lack of multiple mediator studies) Micro level: only 5 empirical studies include micro level

Opportunity for Micro CSR to contribute to Multilevel Models of CSR

x

Growth of Micro CSR Research

Food for ThoughtIn addition to low-hanging fruit, others thoughts:

Instead of trying to fit in with prior management research, what can CSR research teach us that is new about how we view theories of organizations, work, and employees?

Epistemological differences to research methodology: Research usually based on data from the past; CSR inherently deals with challenges we face in the present and those that will face in the future

Why is that some employees are drawn to CSR? Are they filling a void of something they are missing at work?

Walmart Over 500,000 employees engaged in Personal Sustainability

Projects

More than 35,000 business initiatives resulted

All initiatives pay back within 18 months

Rated sustainability as #1 answer to what are you most proud of

PresenterPresentation NotesSay cartoon might be a bit cynical about motives that Walmart got involved, but youll see in the next video

Andy Ruben they tried everything, but nothing worked like CSR. He said in his interviews with all execs at WM, all mentioned sustainability except one of them

Give example of how it is a lens (e.g., 200 packaging initiatives, but also minor ones like receipts, furnace)

Mention that my advisor trained the sustainability consultants at Walmart which is how I have the information, but they are very tight with info (e.g., did not publish study)

On the other handcurrent stateThe joy of work:

Work not among top 8 reasons for happiness (Diener, 2005) Over 50% of employees cannot stand their jobs (Bloom) Only 28% of the US work force is engaged (Gallup, 2010) Engagement in the US at all-time low (Mercer, 2011)

Work is more and more central to peoples sense of self (Rosso et al., 2010)

Employees increasingly searching for meaningfulness at work (Hulin, 2014)

Meaningfulness at work: Mostly studied at individual and organizational

levelstask significance (Grant, 2008a) Empirical studies also of vocation (e.g., Bunderson

& Thompson, 2009; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011) Lack of studies on how employees derive

meaningfulness from what their organization does to others (Rosso et al., 2010) Similar to third-party justice (e.g., Rupp, 2011)

Why Individuals Matter?

Numerous views exist, even regarding corporate Why individuals matter:

perception is reality CSR is enacted through individuals at all levels

Weiss and Rupp (2011: 94-95): We are in a moment in history in which working, that is people working, has moved to the foreground of cultural attention. But where is the science of work and working while this is happening? As a field, this is our topic, yet we are nowhere to be found. Are we going to continue to watch from the sidelines? Are we going to cede the topic of working and work experience to the philosophers while we, the psychologists of working, continue to focus on organizations?

SummaryI. Unpacking + Defining CSR

Numerous approaches to CSR CSR can be individualized for each organization and each person Employee perceptions will vary

II. Historical and current trends Danger of aggregating CSR Does CSR shed new light on agency theory CSR can be individualized for each organization and each person CSR in / at work (integration at organizational vs. individual level)

III. Opportunities for CSR Summit Need for multilevel (i.e., inclusion of micro) Asking questions that matter

Personal ReflectionOn a post-it, write in 2-3 words an area of micro CSR in which you

are personally excited (that is ideally within a multilevel CSR model)

Appendix

Societal Stakeholders

Society

Government

NGOs

Business

Intergovern-mental

Agencies (e.g. UN)

PresenterPresentation NotesSet up debate on agency theory.

Bifactor model RMSEA=.031 [.003, .053], CFI=.997, TLI=.994, SRMR=.011

CSR Value Congruence

Meaningfulness

Psychological Safety

Subjective Well-Being

Organizational Commitment

Job Satisfaction

Purpose

Note. Direct effect of CSR on DVs was also modeled.

H1: Supported H1a, H1b, H1c

H2: Supported H2b, H2c / Not supported H2a

H3: Supported H3c / Not supported H3a, 3c

H4: Supported proportion of indirect effects meaningfulness strongest with 55% of variance (compared to value congruence 20% and psychological safety 19%)

H5: supported Interaction term significant meaningfulness on interaction term, which is

purpose with CSR ( = 0.698, p < .001) Predictors explained 36.6% variance of meaningfulness Without interaction term, 18.9% of variance explained

FIGURE 2Interaction between CSR and Purpose (+ 1 Standard Deviation)

2.5

3

3.5

Low CSR High CSR

Mea

ning

fuln

ess

Low Purpose

High Purpose

Recruitment of youth, CSR is perceived fairness (e.g., Schultz, 2001) Popular press and media: youth (e.g., Millennials) mostly interested in CSR (Deloitte, 2015;

Jayson, 2006; Pew, 2011) Meta-analysis: positive relationship between age and involvement in sustainability (Wiernik,

Ones, & Dilchert, 2013 ) Based on model in this paper (i.e., whole self), theory suggests that older generations would

be more affected by CSR due to Legacy and developmental stages, life-span theory (Erikson, 1950) Generativity (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992) Terror Management Theory (Greenberg et al., 1997)

FIGURE 3Three-Way Interaction among CSR, Purpose, and Age (+ 1 Standard Deviation)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Low CSR High CSR

Mea

ning

fuln

ess (1) High Purp, High Age

(2) High Purp, Low Age

(3) Low Purp, High Age

(4) Low Purp, Low Age

PresenterPresentation NotesExtant literature and empirical studies often focused on recruitment of youth (my opinion is because it is an easier sample as they use students in studies)

McAdams built off of Erikson

Mention that there have been studies (but not peer-reviewed) of number one reason males enter, it is conversations with their daughter

Posthoc Two-Factor Model

Posthoc Reverse Causality

RMSEA = .048, 90% CI [.046, .050]; SRMR = .087; CFI = .81 TLI = .80

Social Impact Leads to Employee Passion

Passion, purpose, and meaningfulness then lead to positive outcomes: Employee pride in impact leads to $500,000 increase in sales per employee

(Glavas & Conlon, 2014) Improved employee engagement, creativity, relationships (Glavas & Piderit,

2009) Job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Glavas & Kelley, 2014)

Value Chain - Example from Dairy Industry

Crop Production

Milk Production Transport Processing Packaging

Distribu-tion Retail

Vision statement

and guiding principlesTruck & Route

Efficiency + Renewable

Fuels

blank

Pastured Dairy/Seasonal

Milk Production

Product Innovation

blankblank

CarbonMarkets

Energy efficiencie

s

Renewable Energy

Infrastructure

Industry Infrastructur

e

Branding, Communicatio

n, Training

Production Efficiencie

s Alternative Fuels

Human Resources, Education, Awareness, Acceptance

Funding and alliances

Enteric Methane capture

Source: Blu Skye for Dairy Management, Inc.

Slide Number 1StructureIa. Unpacking CSRWhat is CSR?7 Blind Men and the ElephantWhat is CSR?How Do We at the CSR Summit Define CSR?what is Corporatewhat is Socialwhat is Responsibility(Welcome) ConfusionIb. Defining CSRAdapted Multimotive Framework of CSR (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007)Difference between Triple Bottom Line (3BL) and Sustainable Value (SV)Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18A Systemic View of CSRII. Historical and Current Trends (brief overview)Personal ReflectionHistorical OverviewTrends, debates, controversiesEmbedded CSR (Aguinis & Glavas, 2013)Embedded CSR, Example 1: GE ecoimaginationEmbedded CSR, Example 2:IBM Smarter PlanetSlide Number 27Embedded CSR, Example 3:DuPontIII. Opportunities for CSR SummitSlide Number 30Slide Number 31Growth of Micro CSR ResearchFood for ThoughtWalmartOn the other handcurrent stateWhy Individuals Matter? SummaryPersonal ReflectionAppendixSocietal StakeholdersSlide Number 41Slide Number 42Slide Number 43Slide Number 44Slide Number 45Slide Number 46Slide Number 47Slide Number 48Slide Number 49Posthoc Two-Factor ModelPosthoc Reverse CausalitySlide Number 52Slide Number 53Slide Number 54Slide Number 55Social Impact Leads to Employee PassionSlide Number 57Value Chain - Example from Dairy Industry