1

CSR AND HRM: A REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

Christian Voegtlin

Department of Business Administration (IBW)

University of Zurich, Universitätsstrasse 84, CH-8006 Zurich

christian.voegtlin@uzh.ch

Michelle Greenwood

Department of Management, Faculty of Business and Economics

Monash University

michelle.greenwood@monash.edu

Work in progress- please do not cite without permission

Keywords:

Responsible HRM, socio-political HRM, internal CSR, systematic review, CSR-HRM

2

CSR AND HRM: A REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Despite increasing focus on research and practice linking CSR and HRM (CSR-HRM), a

comprehensive examination of the relationship between these two constructs is yet to be

undertaken. Depictions of CSR-HRM in extant literature tend to fall into two broad

categories: CSR enacted though HRM (HRM practices used to involve employees in the

implementation of CSR); and HRM enacted through CSR (CSR practices used to attract,

retain and motivate employees). However, CSR-HRM scholars rarely explicate how they

understand the connection between CSR and HRM, and what assumptions they make when

exploring it. As a result, CSR-HRM scholarship tends to be ad hoc and chaotic, with

negligible theoretical or conceptual development of the CSR-HRM relationship. By means of

a systematic review of past and current writings linking CSR and HRM, we expose the

diversity of understandings of CSR-HRM and provide a conceptual map for navigating and

planning further research.

3

CSR AND HRM: A REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

Despite increasing focus on research and practice linking corporate social responsibility

(CSR) and human resource management (HRM), a comprehensive examination of the

relationship between these two constructs is yet to be undertaken. Recent academic attention

to internally (employee) focused CSR and ethical aspects of HRM has been paralleled by

increased practitioner focus on the CSR-HRM relationship (CSR-HRM), so it is not

surprising that we observe an increase in scholarly literature addressing CSR-HRM nexus

(e.g., Becker, Carbo, & Langella, 2010; Preuss, Haunschild, & Matten, 2009; Shen, 2011;

Westermann-Behaylo, Van Buren, & Berman, 2012). What is surprising though, and perhaps

more concerning, is an absence of theoretical anchoring, conceptual framing and

epistemological awareness in many of these contributions. The purpose of this paper is to

remedy this situation in two ways: first, by providing an overview of the CSR-HRM field, and

second by building conceptualizations that specifically addresses the CSR-HRM nexus.

Depictions of CSR-HRM in extant literature appear to fall into two broad categories:

CSR enacted though HRM (HRM practices used to involve employees in the implementation

of CSR; see e.g., Garavan, Heraty, Rock, & Dalton, 2010); and HRM enacted through CSR

(CSR practices used to attract, retain and motivate employees; see e.g., Bhattacharya, Sen, &

Korschun, 2008). We undertake a systematic review to explore the nature of these assumed

interpretations of CSR-HRM both conceptually and empirically. We seek to not only fill in

the detail but also to see if this is the complete story. What happens if, rather than assuming

that one construct is the subset, mechanism or antecedent of the other, we understand CSR-

HRM as an integrated phenomenon? What would be the possible theoretical and conceptual

understandings of an integrated CSR-HRM and what future might future research entail?

4

In order to address these questions, our research will be explained in six stages. First,

we will outline previous ideas about employee participation in organizations (a precursor of

HRM for CSR) and the role of reputation and values in the employment relationship (a

precursor of CSR for HRM). We will then provide our understanding of systematic review

method, including why and how it is suitable for a conceptual investigation such as this,

followed by the details of the analysis. Our findings will provide a descriptive overview of the

CSR-HRM literature that we will subsequently discuss in order to develop a conceptual

overview of CSR-HRM present and future research. We will conclude by highlighting the

importance and limitation of our endeavor.

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN THE FIRM

The role of HRM in CSR can be understood in context of a long history of employee

engagement in various aspects of the organization. Terms such as engagement, involvement,

participation and empowerment have been used both interchangeably and in specific ways to

refer to a variety of ideas about the elicitation employees’ contribution to the firm beyond the

mere supply of labor up to, and including, their involvement in the governance of the

organization (Guest, 1987; Paauwe, 2009). Four approaches to employee participation

identified by Dachler and Wilpert (1978) provide different non-strategic and strategic

rationales for employee participation: (1) a democratic approach suggests that individuals

have the right to participate in institutions that govern them; (2) a socialistic approach

advocates that workers become economically liberate by participating actively and creatively

in the production process, and ultimately controlling it; (3) a human development approach

advises that individuals experience self-actualization and well-being through participation;

and (4) a productivity and efficiency approach proposes that individual (and therefore)

organizational performance is enhanced through employee participation. It is manifest that the

5

engagement of employee does not equate to responsible treatment of employees; that is,

employee participation can be sought for strategic or non-strategic reasons (Greenwood,

2007). The first three rationales (democracy, socialism and human development) have in

common a focus on interests that are non-strategic vis-à-vis the firm (human or social well-

being), whilst the fourth rationale (productivity) is concerned with the interests of the

organization and therefore is strategic in nature.

Employee participation is commonly enacted through HR related practices such as

training, job redesign and teamwork. Indeed, HR is implicated in a number of participation

based organizational fads overtime including Total Quality Management, Knowledge

Management, High Performance Work Systems. For example, the introduction of Japanese

style lean production work practices in the automotive industry in Australia in the 1980s and

1990s involved the introduction of a number of HR practices – teams on the shop floor,

redesign of workstations and jobs, training of team leaders, introduction of industry based

training and accreditation qualifications – many of which was aimed at and involved workers

in production decision making and quality improvements (Welikala & Sohal, 2008). A 21st

century version of HR’s role in involving employees can be seen in the use of internet

technologies, including social media sites, to attract and recruit potential employees, to

communicate opportunities and encourage involvement from employees, and to gather

employee feedback.

Employee involvement in CSR naturally flows from an understanding of CSR as

process-orientated (Maclagan, 1999). It is not necessary to have agreement of specific

purposes or outcomes of CSR in order to concur that CSR is a dynamic process involving

multiple parties in contesting the role of business in society. Even the narrowest definitions of

CSR (e.g. legal compliance, philanthropy) implicate the involvement of employees. There are,

however, a variety of rationales for this involvement: respect for persons (that managers

6

should recognize and attend to employee’s concern about the organization); democratic

principles (given the power of corporations, employee involvement is vital to maintain

democratic governance of the organization); organizational performance (involvement in CSR

leads to employee identification, commitment and higher performance).

Given the centrality of employees’ involvement in CSR, and the degree to which

HRM is integral to employee participation, it seems logical that employee participation in

CSR would be significant to conceptualizing the CSR-HRM relationship.

THE ROLE OF REPUTATION AND VALUES IN ATTRACTING AND

MOTIVATING EMPLOYEES

The role of CSR in HRM can be understood in context of important HR objectives such as

attracting, retaining and motivating employees. It was previously noted that one of the

rationales for involving employees in CSR could be to elicit stronger employee – and

subsequently organizational – performance. This idea can be traced back to the earliest

developments in the human relations school suggesting that employee motivation is related to

social and psychological factors (Legge, 1995).

Competition for high skilled/high demand employees has led employers to position

themselves as “employers of choice” based on a range of organizational factors potentially

directly or indirectly related to employment per se (Bhattacharya et al., 2008). For some

employers and employees, provision of childcare or a gym might be the key ticket item in

attraction and maintenance of employment. For others, the goals and values of the

organization are more important. The Body Shop, under the stewardship of Anita Roddick,

set the benchmark for values based organizations, attracting employees who support the stated

environmental and humanitarian values of the organization (Roddick, 1991). Employees may

be attracted or motivated by an organization’s values for a number of reasons: personal

7

benefit (they may believe a responsible firm will treat their employees well); fulfillment of

personal or social identity goals (they may identify with or wish to be identified with a

particular type of organization); ideological or moral congruence (they want to do a job or

work for an organization in whose goals they believe).

Whilst much CSR research and practice has been oriented to external stakeholders,

there is a growing interest in the internal CSR of companies (see e.g., Aguinis & Glavas,

2012; Gond, Igalens, Swaen, & El Akremi, 2011). Internal CSR is often depicted, at least in

part, in terms of responsible treatment of employees. Whether such responsibility is seen as

compliance with or beyond the law, and whether such responsibility is acquitted for strategic

or moral intent, it remains the case that many employees would wish to work for a company

they believe will treat them “responsibly”. This notion is neither new nor radical (recall

paternalistic early industrialists such as Cadbury or Wedgewood) but takes a novel twist

where internal CSR is linked to external CSR; external CSR could be either an indication or a

contra-indication of internal CSR.

The importance of work and workplace for self-identity construction is well noted

(Dutton, Roberts, & Bendar, 2010). Within social identity theory, an individual’s view of

themselves, their ‘self-concept’, is constructed from multiple private and social selves, and is

influenced by their membership of social organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Cooley’s

(1964) term the “looking-glass self” refers to how people shape ideas of self based on other

people’s perceptions of them which leads the individual to reinforce other people’s

perspectives on themselves. Thus, self-identity can be viewed as a collaborative effort

whereby the audience shapes the identity performance of the individual (Goffman, 1959). For

many individuals, the role of employee or organizational member contributes significantly to

their constructed selves. Furthermore, the impact of common values is much stronger than

that of common interests on group identity formation: values have a wider and deeper effects

8

on people’s behavior than interests alone (Provis, 1996). Hence, identification of employees

with organizations’ values has been used as a foundation for unitarist HRM policies and

practices such as employee engagement, organizational commitment, goal alignment and

employee motivation. In the opinion of some, HRM in and of itself is an “identity-aligning

project” (Alvesson & Karreman, 2007: 719).

Many individuals seek a broader meaning in their work that will let them feel that they

are contributing to the broader community (O'Donohue & Nelson, 2009). Of the three forms

of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991) – affective (emotional), continuance

(cognitive) and normative (moral) – it is affective commitment that has been examined with

regard to employee self-concept and organizational values in the form of CSR (Brammer,

Millington, & Rayton, 2007). However, the reputation and values of a firm may also impact

the moral commitment experienced by employees. Individuals seek to reduce ideological or

moral dissonance, in a similar ways to cognitive and emotional dissonance, by constructing

themselves and their lives in ways that reduce or rationalize gaps between their ideal and their

actual selves.

Individuals’ desire for social identity formation and values alignment are ripe for

appropriation as a form of internalized organizational control (Alvesson & Karreman, 2007).

Indeed, HRM systems are partly secured through the social psychology of self-serving biases

and rationales, as exemplified by performance management systems (Hoedemaekers &

Keegan, 2010). Hence, espoused and/or enacted CSR may form part of an ideological

psychological contract and represent a distinct inducement to elicit employee contributions

and commitment (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003).

Social values and reputation are playing an increasingly influential role in shaping the

attitudes and behavior of individuals and organizations towards the employment relationship

9

(O'Donohue & Nelson, 2009). It would follow that CSR’s role in HRM would be significant

to the conceptualization of CSR-HRM.

METHOD

The goals for undertaking a comprehensive and systematic literature review were twofold: to

get an overview of current research combining the fields of CSR and HRM, and to develop a

framework for the conceptualizations of CSR-HRM in order to provide a grounding for

theoretical development and future research. Therefore, we undertook a conceptual

exploration of CSR-HRM by means of a systematic review of academic literature that

specifically includes these two constructs. Systematic reviews provide the opportunity to

bring to secondary research the same principles and standards that are, or should be, applied

to primary research (Denyer & Neely, 2004).

In this project we (re)interpret systematic review method for use in a conceptual

analysis by drawing on the method’s foundational principles rather than slavishly

transplanting the method by rote. Thus, we further extend the capabilities inherent in this

method to embrace conceptual analyses and post-positivist epistemologies. This differs from

the traditional use of systematic review method in positivist management and organizational

studies to develop an overview or meta-analysis of a specific empirical phenomena (Briner &

Denyer, 2012; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003).

The principles underpinning science based systematic reviews, which have been

adopted by positive management research, include (1) transparency, (2) comprehensiveness

and (3) reproducibility (4) theoretical derived rationale (Briner & Denyer, 2012; Leseure,

Bauer, Birdi, Neely, & Denyer, 2004). For the purposes of post-positive management

research, being transparent (being explicit about methodological assumptions and

methodology) and comprehensiveness (trying to find as out much as possible) pose little

10

problem, indeed such goals can only benefit research quality (and provide rebut to critical

reviewers). However, reproducibility is not necessarily possible or desirable for some

research/ers. Post-positivist ontological assumptions propose that subjectivity and

participation of the researcher fundamentally changes “evidence” such that results cannot be

impartial and that analysis cannot be reproduced.

Thus we posit that for the broad range of epistemologies associated with our main

concepts of interest (HRM and CSR), but also often for management research in general

(inclusive of post-positive research), systematic reviews should comprise the following

features: clear research goals; a broad and inclusive search base; clear and theoretically driven

search rationale; and clear and theoretically driven approach to organizing the literature.

Because of the disparate nature of the “evidence” to be collected (lack of comparability) an

interpretive approach (as opposed to an aggregation or “meta-analysis” approach) to

systematic reviews is most suitable. By comparing key interpretations across conceptual and

qualitative studies (not to the exclusion of quantitative studies) human experience and social

phenomena can be captured in their contexts (Rousseau et al., 2008).

Thus, our method combined a systematic literature review with aspects of thematic

content analysis and qualitative meta-synthesis (Rousseau et al., 2008; Tranfield et al., 2003).

“Realist synthesis and metasynthesis challenge the positivistic orthodoxy that surrounds

contemporary approaches to research reviews, demonstrating that a synthesis can be an

interpretive, inductive, hermeneutic and eclectic process” (Tranfield et al., 2003: 218).

The review comprised four steps, first we did a comprehensive and systematic search

to identify and extract all the relevant literature in relation to CSR-HRM published in peer-

reviewed academic journals. Second, we developed a coding template to classify the articles.

Third, a content analysis of the retrieved articles, based on the codebook, was used to extract

11

quantitative and qualitative data. Finally, the results were interpreted and the findings

meaningfully synthesized.

Identification of Research and Selection of Studies

The initial step comprised the identification of the relevant research. To capture previously

published research in refereed academic journals from 1975 to July 2012, we used 11 EBSCO

online databases1. We conducted a Boolean search of these, combining one of several “CSR-

terms” with one of several “HRM-terms”2

In addition, we did not search for sustainability and environmental issues relating to

HRM. We acknowledge that there are debates around the definition and scope of CSR and its

relation to the term sustainability. Some scholars subsume sustainability under the term CSR

and vice versa. However, sustainability (like CSR) is a complex developing and contested

construct and the inclusion would add ambiguity to our research to the degree that would

dilute our original research purpose and findings. We expect that there is likely to be some

and repeated the search for all possible

combinations. We selected options provided by EBSCO to limit the search fields to title (TI),

abstract (AB), or subject terms (SU) and to search only “scholarly (peer-reviewed) journals”.

Further, we did not include terms belonging to the broader field of business ethics (sometimes

associated with CSR) as we were not directly interested in the ethical aspects of HRM, which

is an already established literature stream (2012; special issue of Journal of Business Ethics

111 (1), 2012 ; Greenwood, 2002), but rather wanted to uncover the new empirical and

theoretical developments around the social responsibility of corporations and its relation to

HRM.

1 Databases included for the review: Business Source Premier; EconLit ; Regional Business News; SocINDEX; ERIC; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; Historical Abstracts; Communication & Mass Media Complete; GreenFILE; Political Science Complete; PsycBOOKS 2 “CSR-terms”: ‘CSR’, ‘corporate social responsibility’, ‘social responsibility’, ‘political responsibility’; “HRM-terms”: ‘HRM’, ‘human resource management’, ‘human resource*’, and ‘employ* relation*’. Searching for “human resource*” also covered research under the label of human resource development.

12

overlap between CSR-HRM discourse and sustainability-HRM discourse but the examination

of this overlap is beyond the scope of our research (see e.g., Ehnert & Harry, 2012).

Finally, we did not include terms related to specific HRM practices, like recruitment

or career development, as we are interested in the more general role of HRM in relation to

CSR and not in its particular implementation practices.

The initial search was augmented with conference proceeding and unpublished work.

We announced a call for working papers and unpublished manuscripts through the

International Association of Business and Society (IABS), Social Issues in Management

Division (AOM) and the Human Resource Division (AOM) research networks. Overall, the

searches resulted in an initial database of 209 articles.

This primary list of articles was refined to account for the “tension between the

statistical benefits of including a large number of primary studies and conducting high-quality

reviews of fewer studies with the use of more selective methodological criteria of inclusion

and exclusion” (Tranfield et al., 2003: 215). Thus, in addition to limiting our search terms, we

excluded all articles where one or both terms (CSR or HRM) were interpreted differently to

general understanding or were absent from the study (even though they were named in the

title/abstract/search terms). This judgment was made during the content analysis of the

articles undertaken separately and independently by the study’s two authors. Articles that

were not clearly identifiable as included or excluded were discussed between the two

researchers and a consensual decision was made3

Overall, 91 articles (41%) were disqualified from the initial database of 209. This high

number of excluded articles reflects that even though aspects of CSR and HRM were included

.

3 Excluded articles included short biographies of authors, bibliographies or editorial letters with no substantial discussion of CSR or HRM. We further excluded articles where CSR was an abbreviation for customer service representatives, where the main focus of the paper was on areas in management or organization research not directly related to CSR or HRM (like leadership, CEO compensation, customer satisfaction in transportation systems, marketing, etc.), and papers where HRM or CSR was only marginally touched upon. A further three articles were excluded prior to content analysis as we were unable to retrieve them however, judging from their abstracts, they were unlikely to be highly relevant for our research.

13

in the titles, abstract or keywords, they were not the actual focus or research question of the

article (perhaps indicating an early trend or “fashion” towards CSR-HRM). The final dataset

of articles relating CSR and HRM consisted of 115 articles.

Content Analysis

After the initial step of creating the database, we did a content analysis to retrieve relevant

information from the 115 papers with regard to bibliographical data, research process and

research content. We developed a codebook that allowed us to extract descriptive data as well

as narratives from the articles. The development of the codebook was an iterative process. We

began with categories derived from prior templates of systematic reviews, selected articles in

the fields of HRM and CSR, and the authors’ prior experience and expertise. The extracted

categories were amended or adjusted inductively according to the findings. An iterative

approach allowed us to build on existing knowledge by using this knowledge to guide our

initial research, while at the same time identifying new findings that emerged. The final

codebook was formalized and used as a template for the analysis of all the articles. This

helped us to retrieve descriptive data and key emerging themes around CSR-HRM.

The reliability and interpretative validity of the systematic review and the analysis of

the results was ensured though several steps: structured and systematic protocols for the

search, a formalized codebook, and cross-referencing and multiple rounds of coding between

the two study authors. Rounds of coding were always followed up by discussions that helped

creating a common understanding of the relevant categories. Areas of difference or

disagreement were used as opportunities for clarifying the codebook and ensuring inter-rater

agreement.

14

DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS

The results of our research are displayed in Tables 1 and 2. They clearly show an increasing

interest in the topic over time (see also Figure 1). We separated the publications into an early

incubation phase from 1975 to 2000 (8%), a phase of incremental growth from 2001 to 2008

(28%), and finally, a period of rapid growth in recent years (63% of the articles were

published from 2009 till 2012). Surveying the shifts in publications over this 37 year period

underscores first, the surging interest in the topic and the need for research in an

underexplored field. Second it also highlights the changes in the understanding of CSR-HRM

over time. While early publications treated the relationship narrowly in terms of social aspects

of work or discussed it with regard to the “social responsibility of business [being] a totally

new phenomenon” (Bergmann, 1975: 61), with an increase in the relevance of the CSR topic

both in research and practice and the broadening scope of HRM’s responsibilities over time,

the relationship between the two constructs has broadened to become an interesting and

fruitful area of research.

------------------------------------ Insert Figure 1 about here

------------------------------------

The final database comprised mainly research articles (72%), but also practitioner

accounts on HRM-CSR (12%), and review articles or comments (9%). It is interesting that

there is an interest on connections between CSR and HRM from practitioners. This

emphasizes the relevance of the topic for professionals and reveals the demand for addressing

the connection more thoroughly from a scholarly perspective.

Most of the research articles were empirical research articles (62%), compared to only

33% of purely conceptual manuscripts. Judging also from the few conceptual manuscripts that

really address the CSR-HRM relationship in depth (6%; see Table 2), we see room for further

15

theoretical work. It is interesting that there are already many empirical research studies before

substantial and agreed upon conceptual work has been done that could guide empirical

enquires. The use of qualitative and quantitative methods is equally distributed among the

empirical studies (30% each). The qualitative studies are predominantly based on

interviews/content analysis used as inductive and explorative research (e.g., Davies & Crane,

2010). Most of the quantitative articles are either descriptive (e.g., Vives, 2006), investigate

already more established aspects of HRM and/or CSR (like commitment, job satisfaction,

turnover, or corporate charitable contributions; see e.g., Brammer et al., 2007; Chen, Patten,

& Roberts, 2008; Cheruiyot & Maru, 2011), or surveyed HRM as part of CSR

operationalizations or CSR disclosure (most often when CSR was measured via the KLD

Database, as was the case in over 10% of all articles in the database).

The articles appeared in almost equal parts in CSR or business ethics journals (26%),

in HRM related journals (23%), as well as in general management (18%) or other

management related journals (18%). The predominant unit of analysis was almost always the

organization4

Further, while 40% of the articles did not specify any geographical region, it is

interesting that of those remaining 60% that focused on a specific country or region, this

focus was almost exclusive on developed countries in North America, Europe or Australia

(44%). Only 16% dealt with issues in Asia, South America, or Africa.

(94 of the 115 articles), followed by (and also often combined with) an

emphasis on managers (25 articles) or employees (33 articles). Articles rarely addressed other

stakeholder groups as the main unit of analysis. Thus, when investigating CSR and HRM, the

main area of interest is still internal organizational processes and the employer-employee

relationship.

4 We coded the organization as the unit of analysis when it was considered as an entity on its own (an indication was e.g. when the article spoke explicitly of how the organization implements CSR or treats its employees in a certain way, whereas in the latter case employees would have been regarded as an additional unit of analysis).

16

Finally, we analyzed and interpreted the often implicit relationship between CSR and

HRM used in the different studies and synthesized the different conceptualizations into five

categories (see also Table 2 and Table 3). It is this analysis to which we now turn.

------------------------------------ Insert Table 1 about here

------------------------------------ ------------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here ------------------------------------

CONCEPTUAL FINDINGS

Our systematic review confirms that the scholarly debate in CSR-HRM is dominated by two

trends – HRM as a part of CSR and CSR as a part of HRM – with little research focused on

either overview of the relationship or integration of the constructs (for a pictorial

representation of the overview see Figure 2). By revealing philosophical assumptions hitherto

implicit in much of this writing, our analysis provides a nuanced understanding of these two

prevailing trends. It also provides an opportunity to explore the small number of papers that

have taken seriously the integration of CSR and HRM. Both of these discussions advance the

development of CSR-HRM as an integrated theoretical concept and indicate issues for further

research.

------------------------------------ Insert Figure 2 about here

------------------------------------

HRM as part of CSR: HRM as antecedent or subset of CSR

Where HRM is discussed as an element of CSR, CSR is the focus of the research (see

exemplary quotes in Table 3). The emphasis tends to be on the enabling of CSR and there are

various (often unstated) assumptions made about the nature of CSR, the purpose of CSR and

the desirability of CSR (for an overview of different approaches to CSR, see e.g., Garriga &

17

Melé, 2004; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). The concentration on CSR in this research is reflected

by many (35%) of these studies being published in journals related to business ethics or CSR.

HRM is considered to be part of CSR in a number of ways that can be summarized

into two categories. HRM as an antecedent to CSR focuses on the role of human resources

(employees) and human resource management in enabling CSR in the organization. HRM as

a subset of CSR would suggest that HRM is one of several factors that make up CSR. Figure

2 shows these relationships, antecedent (labeled 1) and subset (labeled 2), of HRM to CSR.

Depictions of HRM as an antecedent of CSR explored how various HRM practices

that focused on employee participation could impact CSR policies and practices. These

studies were based on either strategic or non-strategic rationale for employee participation:

from a strategic perspective, participation could positively impact the achievement of

performance related goals of CSR; or from a non-strategic perspective, participation could

give employees their rightful voice and/or enhance the responsibility goals of CSR (see

discussion of Dachler & Wilpert, 1978).

A minority of studies in this category were concerned with using HRM in order to

achieve CSR for strategic reasons (e.g., Becker, 2011; Boesso & Michelon, 2010). More

common was a concern for how HRM could impact CSR for non-strategic purposes: by

respecting employees’ right to participate and/or ensuring more genuine and emancipatory

CSR. For example, Chih et al (2010: 119) found that “corporations will be more likely to act

in socially responsible ways if they are engaged in institutionalized dialog (sic) with unions,

employees, community groups, investors and other stakeholders.”

We note that the discipline of human resource development (HRD) appears to be more

focused on the responsibility aspect of CSR than their HRM counterparts (Fenwick &

Bierema, 2008; Garavan & McGuire, 2010; MacKenzie, Garavan, & Carbery, 2012). In a

leading example, Fenwick and Bierema, claim a role for HRD “that challenges a

18

straightforward focus on human performance and suggests greater attention to power

relations, equity [and] social justice… in promoting CSR in humanistic as well as

emancipatory activities; that is, activities focused on transforming socio-political structures to

ensure sustainable, democratic workplaces for individuals” (Fenwick & Bierema, 2008: 26).

These authors identify three key aspects of HRD – organizational development, employee

learning and employee rights – to develop socially conscious HRD, as an alternative to

performance-based HRD, to achieve the fullest development of CSR.

HRM was also considered as subset of CSR whereby HRM is seen as one of a number

of elements that comprise CSR or as partial evidence to demonstrate the CSR of an

organization. For example, in studies looking at CSR disclosure, HRM or employee relations

were identified as a measure of CSR (e.g., Holder-Webb, Cohen, Nath, & Wood, 2009) and,

in some cases, implying “good” HRM is a feature of CSR (Cheruiyot & Maru, 2011). HRM

and employee relations also featured in studies reporting CSR measurement, corporate social

performance (CSP) such as the KLD (e.g., Boesso & Michelon, 2010; El Ghoul, Guedhami,

Kwok, & Mishra, 2011). Few of CSR disclosure or CSP studies considered any difficulty

involved in measuring HRM (see Power, 2004) and none questioned the notion of “good”

HRM (see Greenwood, 2002; Jack, Greenwood, & Schapper, 2012).

CSR as part of HRM: CSR as an antecedent for effective or responsible HRM

Where CSR is assumed to be part of HRM, it is HRM that is the focus of the research (see

Table 3). The majority of the research in this area considers CSR to be a strategic tool for

enhancing the effectiveness of HRM. A smaller number of studies assume that CSR is

concerned with acquitting responsible HRM. The notion that responsible HRM can be used as

readily as effective HRM for strategic purposes (Shen, 2011; Shen & Jiuhua Zhu, 2011) blurs

19

the line between these two categories. Figure 2 shows this relationship, CSR as antecedent to

either effective or responsible HRM (labeled 3).

Using CSR for effective HRM provides the rationale for the majority of the studies

where HRM is the leading construct. The idea that is developed both conceptually and

empirically is that the CSR reputation and practices of a firm can be used to attract, retain and

motivate employees, that is “win the war for talent” (Bhattacharya et al., 2008). For example,

Brammer et al. (2007) find that the positive impact of external CSR on employees’

organizational commitment is mediated by employees’ social identity. In its most

sophisticated form, this idea is an enactment of unitarist philosophies of HRM where CSR

becomes a method to align the interest, values and goals of the employee with the

organization; a form of “high commitment” or “soft” HRM. Indeed, it could be argued that

CSR has become the basis of an “ideological psychological contract” between employer and

employee (O'Donohue & Nelson, 2009; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003).

The interpretation of CSR as responsible HRM has been surfaced in several studies

(e.g., Ardichvili, 2011; McCabe, 2000). One view is that CSR is a form of soft law, a

substitute for legislation and/or regulation, suggests that responsible HRM can be achieved

through CSR. One can legitimately ask what value is gained in attaching the term CSR to

responsible HRM practices; that is, how the new “SRHRM” (or its variation SR-IHRM; Shen,

2011) differs from what may have been viewed as responsible or ethical employment for time

immemorial.

Integrating CSR-HRM

Rather than pursue narrow uni-directional depictions of the role of HRM in CSR or vice

versa, a small number of studies have considered CSR-HRM as a complex and rich

interactive phenomena (see examples in Table 3). These studies provide much to explore in

20

our understanding of the CSR-HRM relationship and many points of departure for future

research.

A sharp, short study on employee orientation may help explain why we see some

scholars assume HRM is part of CSR and others assume the “opposite” that CSR is part of

HRM. De Bussy and Suprawan (2011) note that the construct of employee orientation has

been imprecisely treated as synonymous with both CSR/CSP (employee orientation as a

subset of stakeholder orientation) and HRM (employee orientation as a high performance

HRM practice). But employee orientation (or the related employee engagement) not only

suffers from a lack of conceptual clarity but also the “responsibility myth”, giving an aura of,

consideration of interests and even sharing of power where non such intentions may exist

(Greenwood, 2007). In response, the authors evoke a cocktail of Buber’s genuine dialogue,

Kantian respect for individuals and Rawl’s contractual fairness as a basis for employee

orientation, which (without acknowledgement) shadow well developed arguments of political

CSR theorists for a Habermasian multi-actor discourse as a basis for norm setting (see

amongst others, Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011).

A series of European cases presented by Preuss et al. (2009), showing the capacity of

both HR and labour unions to shape corporate policy highlight two important features: that

regional setting may entail focus on different aspects of CSR and be shaped by a different

constellation of actors; and that employee representatives and trade unions can play a pivotal

role in CSR.

Arising from death and tragedy, Hallin and Gustavsson’s (2009) story of a middle

manager provides an opportunity for the rehumanising of HRM (not unlike the film by The

HR Manager). By considering an act of “embodied generosity” (drawn from Hancock, 2008)

of an individual qua manager as the intertwining of HRM and CSR, the authors ask (2009:

215): Should not the core values of CSR and HRM be the same? Based on this paper, we can

21

build an argument that the CSR turn in HRM provides a much needed antidote to the

excessive managerialism and performance orientation of SHRM. CSR infused HRM can be

an antidote to strategy infused HRM: a substitute for the lost welfare or person focus of HRM

(Delbridge & Keenoy, 2010); a return to the original stakeholder focus of the early Harvard

model (Beer et al., 1984); and a way to reclaim the social legitimacy of the HR profession

(Kochan, 2007).

Perhaps the most comprehensive exploration of the CSR-HRM relationship to date sits

within a systematic review of CSR-employment relations undertaken by Brammer (2011).

Brammer’s study focuses more broadly than this present study on both sides of the equation:

rather than HRM, the focus is on employment relations; and rather than CSR specifically, the

focus is CSR and business ethics. Nevertheless, we take to heart his salient findings: that

extant research is overly focused on issues at the expense of than conceptual foundations and

theoretical development; that it places too much emphasis on problematizing HRM and its

“dark side”; that existing research is highly fragmented; that there is a divide between

research that is CSR oriented and research that is employment relations oriented (including

where such research is published); and that much current research is organization rather than

employee oriented. We thus move to our substantive contribution, a broad ranging

conceptualization of CSR-HRM that sets the ground for both dialogue and disagreement

across a range of ontological and epistemological perspectives.

------------------------------------ Insert Table 3 about here

------------------------------------

DEPICTING DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF CSR-HRM AND THEIR

IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Several distinct ideas arise from the CSR-HRM literature that provide the basis for the

conceptual development of CSR-HRM: (1) CSR and HRM are not equivalent but overlap, in

22

particular the goals of CSR and HRM are related, whether these are strategic or non-strategic.

(2) There are multiple legitimate actors in CSR-HRM including institutional actors and actors

beyond the organization. (3) CSR-HRM implies that both CSR and HRM have a role in

society beyond the organization. All of these aspects are important to get a full picture of

what the CSR-HRM relationship means.

In order to summarize and structure the CSR-HRM research and map the territory for

future research, we drawn on Garriga and Mele’s (2004) four approaches to CSR (strategic,

integrative, ethical, political). We suggest that there are four possible approaches to CSR-

HRM that comprise different conceptualizations of the relationship that can be distinguished

by different philosophical assumptions. We acknowledge the diversity of these various

approaches and their potential to contribute to different forms of knowledge around this link.

The combining of CSR and HRM for strategic purposes underpins the vast majority of

research in CSR-HRM. This strategic take on CSR-HRM materializes in several forms, but

the underlying premise is that the involvement of employees in CSR has potential for positive

outcomes for the organization. There is some variation as to whether positive outcomes for

employees, as a result of employee involvement in CSR, are a goal (rather than a default by-

product) of CSR-HRM such that the research might be considered integrative.

Approaches that rely either explicitly or implicitly on a strategic view of CSR-HRM

are be based on HRM used strategically to pursue practices of social responsibility and/or

CSR as strategic in pursuing practices of HRM; either one being for the ultimate purpose of

enhanced organizational performance outcomes and concomitant shareholder value. The

theoretical underpinnings for the strategic perspective derive often from the neo-classical

economics approach and “hard” or strategic models of HRM (Tichy, Fombrun, & Devanna,

1982). There is an implicit assumption of unitarism (Boselie, Brewster, & Paauwe, 2009;

Van Buren, Greenwood, & Sheehan, 2011): that the interests between employer and

23

employee are shared, and that management holds the singular source of authority (Fox, 1974).

The direct role of business, and subsequently the function of CSR or HRM, in society, is seen

as passive and undertaken through market mechanisms. The focus is thereby most often on

internal organizational mechanisms, the individual employees, and implementation of the

strategic targets of the firm.

The integrative approach to CSR suggests that social demands should be integrated

into businesses, as they are dependent on society for continuity and growth (Garriga & Melé,

2004). Similarly, the “soft” or relational view of HRM is based on integration of employee

needs with organizational purposes. Therefore, from an integrative CSR-HRM perspective,

involvement of employees in CSR practices and/or delivery of responsible employment is

undertaken for the benefit of employees, the organization and other stakeholders. An

integrative CSR-HRM incorporates issues of CSR in terms of employee commitment and

satisfaction. The theoretical underpinnings of this perspective are integrative CSR theories,

such as strategic stakeholder theory (e.g., Freeman, 1984) and theories of “soft” or relational

HRM (e.g., Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Mills, & Walton, 1984). From the integrative

perspective, CSR is seen as “license to operate”, organizational legitimacy and stakeholder

management; preconditions for the continued flow of resources and the organizational

acceptance within society. As an internal stakeholder, employees’ needs, such as job

satisfaction, are considered and included as dependent and desirable outcome variables for

both employee well-being and sustained organizational performance. It is assumed that what

is good for the employee is also good for the employer; the unitarist assumption that employer

and employee interests are the same or, if not, that they can be aligned. Within these

categories, we find predominantly research that treats HR practices as antecedents to CSR and

subsequently, as a way to enhanced financial performance or other outcomes considered

important for an organization (like increasing commitment).

24

An ethical motivation for CSR-HRM may appear to be an obvious and commonly

stated purpose, but surprisingly little research is focused on this goal. Behaving ethically is

seen as a primary obligation that transcends other considerations including profit

maximization. Similarly an ethical approach to HRM (Greenwood, 2002), ethical CSR-HRM

emphasizes that the organization has ethical duties towards employees as well as society (e.g.

providing acceptable work and working conditions). From an ethical CSR-HRM perspective,

the ethical responsibility towards employees and other stakeholders can be acquitted through

involvement of employees in CSR practices and/or delivery of responsible employment.

Theoretical assumptions of this perspective are often based on ethical philosophies. Ethical

approaches to HRM are based on respecting the various interests. Therefore one of the main

differences to the two prior approaches to HRM is the explicit acknowledgment of the

plurality of interests between employer and employees. There is some concern for employee

involvement in CSR-HRM as a stakeholder right and to ensure the integrity and emancipatory

capacity of CSR programs. But, as is often the case in business ethics, ethical arguments are

often considered insufficient without a corresponding strategic business case argument (not

just good for the employees but also good for the company) or political institution based

argument (changes are needed to institutional arrangements to address structural inequities

and capacity to influence). Especially with regard to the ethical dimension, future research on

CSR-HRM should address more explicitly what makes this relationship different from ethical

considerations in previous HRM research (e.g., Greenwood, 2002).

Of interest is the socio-political view of CSR-HRM. Given the conceptual

development around political theories of CSR (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2012), and the

unspoken socio-political implications of HRM in world of deregulated or deregulating labor

markets (Edwards & Kuruvilla, 2005; Scherer & Voegtlin, 2011), this interpretation of CSR-

HRM holds great potential for conceptual and empirical development. Political approaches to

25

CSR, according to Garriga and Melé (2004), address the power of corporations in society and

concomitant responsibilities. Likewise, critical approaches to HRM are concerned with

mainstream HRM approach’s obsession with organizational performance and its

obliviousness to power relationship (Delbridge & Keenoy, 2010). Social-political CSR-HRM

thus incorporates issues of CSR in terms of employee voice, power relationships and political

activity. The focus of HRM is considerably widened by conceptualizing its socio-political

role in society. Foremost for a socio-political CSR-HRM approach is an emancipatory

research interest, i.e. approaches challenge given assumptions and aim at changing the status

quo by emancipating the less powerful actors or demanding an enhanced responsibility of

those more powerful. Connected to that is the demand for an exploration of the socio-political

role for HRM such as the interrelation between HRM and legal standards (rule making and

rule taking), or the socio-political aspects of HRM on the organizational, the societal and the

global level. The pluralism of interests is acknowledged and regarded as immanent to the

system. Employer and employees are seen as two parties with differing goals.

Socio-political CSR-HRM holds the possibility of exploring the social and political

embeddedness of HRM – relationships between stakeholders in the management of “human

resources” both internal and external to the firm; shifting institutional arrangements and

balances of power between corporations, governments and civil society – in order to address

hitherto hidden wicked questions of HRM including human trafficking, poverty, indigenous

rights and income security. Future research in this domain could connect to comparative

institutional research in IHRM (Preuss et al., 2009; Rowley & Warner, 2007) or incorporate

considerations on global governance and proactive political responsibility (Young, 2006).

While extant research in IHRM often takes the institutional environment as taken for granted

and analyses the impact of different institutional settings on HRM, a proactive view of the

organization in shaping institutional contexts alongside considerations of CSR-HRM, be it

26

e.g., improved working conditions, giving voice to employees, or educating employees as

citizens, would provide a fruitful way to enrich CSR-HRM and untangle the responsibility of

multinational corporations.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

We have undertaken the task of a systematic review of the relationship between two broad

ranging and contested constructs CSR and HRM. Our motivation was the marked increase in

research linking these two constructs in absences of overt conceptualization and theory

building. We have provided the findings of our review and these, unsurprisingly, confirmed

that this newly developing area of research is fragmented, ad hoc and highly partial. Our

study reveals important detail of the various lines of argument and perspectives perused and

thus enabled us to move towards our goal of developing overarching conceptualizations of

CSR-HRM: strategic, integrative, ethical and socio-political CSR-HRM.

Conceptualization of CSR-HRM holds promise for both theoretical and practice

developments in both CSR and HRM. The strategic turn in HRM has paradoxically seen a

shift in the discipline away from consideration of external stakeholders (Kochan, 2007). CSR-

HRM provides a lens through which to view multiple internal and external stakeholder

relationships within the HRM. A move towards consideration of internal stakeholders has

been noted in the CSR literature (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). CSR-HRM can move fully

develop notions of employees as stakeholders – the nature of their stake and their engagement

with the organization – and their special role as constituting and representing the firm

(Greenwood & Anderson, 2009).

Significantly, we seek to provide grounds for dialogue and plurality among multiple

perspectives. Our own extensive and subjective research experiences bring both value and

limitations to this analysis. As we note in discussing our methodological approach, we do not

27

aim for, indeed do not believe in, objectivity and reproducibility in the interpretation of

conceptual data. Inevitably, there will be disagreement with our analyses and resultant theses;

what we have wrong and what we have omitted. We are pleased for such dissensus and

debate; rather than gather the field together as an integrated whole, we hold that the goal for a

conceptual analysis such as this is to map territory, track less-explored paths and expose the

terrain.

28

REFERENCES

Aguinis, H. & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don’t know about corporate social

responsibility. Journal of Management, 38(4): 932-968.

Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. 2007. Unraveling HRM: Identity, ceremony, and control in a

management consulting firm. Organization Science, 18(4): 711-723.

Ardichvili, A. 2011. Sustainability of nations, communities, organizations and individuals:

The role of HRD. Human Resource Development International, 14(4): 371-374.

Ashforth, B.E. & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14(1): 20-39.

Barrena-Martinez, J., Lopez-Fernandez, M., & Romero-Fernandez, P.M. 2011. Research

proposal on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and strategic

human resource management. International Journal of Management & Enterprise

Development, 10(2): 173-187.

Becker, W.S. 2011. Are you leading a socially responsible and sustainable human resource

function? People & Strategy, 34(1): 18-23.

Becker, W.S., Carbo, J.A., & Langella, I.M. 2010. Beyond self-interest: Integrating social

responsibility and supply chain management with human resource development.

Human Resource Development Review, 9(2): 144-168.

Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P.R., Mills, Q.D., & Walton, R.E. 1984. Managing human

assets. New York: Free Press.

Bergmann, A.E. 1975. The social responsibility of business in perspective. Management

International Review (MIR), 15(1): 61-65.

29

Berkley, R. and Watson, G. 2009. The employer-employee relationship as a building block

for ethics and corporate social responsibility. Employee Responsibilities & Rights

Journal, 21: 275-277.

Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. 2008. Using corporate social responsibility to

win the war for talent. Sloan Management Review, 49(2): 37-44.

Bohdanowicz, P. & Zientara, P. 2008. Corporate social responsibility in hospitality: Issues

and implications. A case study of Scandic. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism, 8(4): 271-293.

Boesso, G. & Michelon, G. 2010. The effects of stakeholder prioritization on corporate

financial performance: An empirical investigation. International Journal of

Management, 27(3): 470-496.

Boselie, P., Brewster, C., & Paauwe, J. 2009. In search of balance - managing the dualities of

HRM: An overview of the issues. Personnel Review, 38(5): 461-471.

Brammer, S. 2011. Employment relations and corporate social responsibility. In K. Townsend

& A. Wilkinson (Eds.), Research handbook on the future of work and employment

relations: 296-318. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. 2007. The contribution of corporate social

responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 18(10): 1701-1719.

Briner, R.B. & Denyer, D. 2012. Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and

scholarship tool. In D.M. Rousseau (Ed.), Handbook of evidence-based management:

112-129. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chen,C., Patten,D.M., and Roberts,R. 2008. Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate

social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1): 131-

144.

30

Cheruiyot, T.K. & Maru, L.C. 2011. Employee social responsibility practices and outcomes in

Kenya's toursit hotels. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 3(1):

1-26.

Chih, H.L., Chih, H.H., & Chen, T.Y. 2010. On the determinants of corporate social

responsibility: International evidence on the financial industry. Journal of Business

Ethics, 93(1): 115-135.

Cooke, F.L. & He, Q.L. 2010. Corporate social responsibility and HRM in China: a study of

textile and apparel enterprises. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(3): 355-376.

Cooley, C.H. 1964. Human nature and the social order. New York: Transaction Publishers.

Dachler, H.P. & Wilpert, B. 1978. Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in

organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1): 1-39.

Davies, I.A. & 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): 126-139.

Deakin, S. & Hobbs, R. 2007. False dawn for CSR? Shifts in regulatory policy and the

response of the corporate and financial sectors in Britain. Corporate Governance: An

International Review, 15(1): 68-76.

de Bussy, N.M. & Suprawan, L. 2011. Most valuable stakeholders: The impact of employee

orientation on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Review, published

online first.

Delbridge, R. & Keenoy, T. 2010. Beyond managerialism? International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 21(6): 799-817.

Déniz-Déniz, M.d.l.C. & Saá-Pérez, P.D. 2003. A Resource-based View of Corporate

Responsiveness toward Employees. Organization Studies, 24(2): 299-319.

31

Denyer, D. & Neely, A. 2004. Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity

performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(3/4):

131-135.

Dutton, J.E., Roberts, L.M., & Bendar, J. 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at

work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of

Management Review, 35(2): 265-293.

Edwards, T. & Kuruvilla, S. 2005. International HRM: National business systems,

organizational politics and the international division of labour in MNCs. International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1): 1-21.

Ehnert, I. & Harry, W. 2012. Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human

resource management: Introduction to the special issue. Management Revue, 23(3):

221-238.

El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C.C.Y., & Mishra, D.R. 2011. Does corporate social

responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9): 2388-

2406.

Fenwick, T. & Bierema, L. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: issues for human resource

development professionals. International Journal of Training & Development,

12(1): 24-35.

Fox, A. 1974. Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations. London: Faber.

Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Garavan, T.N., Heraty, N., Rock, A., & Dalton, E. 2010. Conceptualizing the behavioral

barriers to CSR and CS in organizations: A typology of HRD interventions. Advances

in Developing Human Resources, 12(5): 587-613.

Garavan, T.N. & McGuire, D. 2010. Human resource development and society: Human

resource developments role in embedding corporate social responsibility,

32

sustainability, and ethics in Organizations. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 12(5): 487-507.

Garriga, E. & Melé, D. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory.

Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 51-71.

Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday

Anchor.

Gond, J.P., 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, 98(0): 115-132.

Greenwood, M. 2002. Ethics and HRM: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of

Business Ethics, 36(3): 261-278.

Greenwood, M. 2007. Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility.

Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4): 315-327.

Greenwood, M. 2012. Ethical analysis of HRM: A review and research agenda. Journal of

Business Ethics, online first

Greenwood, M. & Anderson, E. 2009. "I used to be an employee but now I am a stakeholder":

Implications of labelling employees as stakeholders. Asia Pacific Human Resource

Journal, 47(2): 186-200.

Guest, D.E. 1987. Human resource management and industrial relations. Journal of

Management Studies, 24(5): 503-521.

Hallin, A. & Gustavsson, T.K. 2009. Managing death - Corporate social responsibility and

tragedy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(4):

206-216.

Hancock, P. 2008. Embodied generosity and an ethics of organization. Organization Studies,

29(10): 1357-1373.

33

Hoedemaekers, C. & Keegan, A. 2010. Performance pinned down: Studying subjectivity and

the language of performance. Organization Studies, 31(8): 1021-1044.

Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J., Nath, L., & Wood, D. 2009. The supply of corporate social

responsibility disclosures among U.S. firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4): 497-

527.

Jack, G., Greenwood, M., and Schapper, J. Frontiers, intersections and engagements of ethics

and HRM. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(1): 1-12.

Kochan, T. 2007. Social legitimacy of the HRM profession: A US perspective. In P. Boxall &

J. Purcell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of HRM: 599-619. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Legge, K. 1995. Human resource management: Rethorics and realities. London: Macmillan

Business.

Lehmann, M., Toh, I., Christensen, P., & Rufei, M. 2010. Responsible leadership?

Development of CSR at Danfoss, Denmark. Corporate Social Responsibility &

Environmental Management, 17(3): 153-168.

Leseure, M.J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A., & Denyer, D. 2004. Adoption of promising

practices: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 5/6(3/4): 169-190.

MacKenzie, C., Garavan, T.N., & Carbery, R. 2012. Corporate social responsibility: HRD as

a mediator of organizational ethical behavior. Working Paper,

Maclagan, P. 1999. Corporate social responsibility as a participative process. Business

Ethics: A European Review, 8(1): 43-49.

Mankelow, G. 2008. Social responsibility paradox of small business human resource

management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

19(12): 2171-2181.

34

McCabe, D.M. 2000. Global labor and worksite standards: A strategic ethical analysis of

shareholder employee relations resolutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(1): 101-

110.

Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1): 61.

O'Donohue, W. & Nelson, L. 2009. The role of ethical values in an expanded psychological

contract. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2): 251-263.

Paauwe, J. 2009. HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and

prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1): 129-142.

Power, M. 2004. Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and

management. Hum.relat.(N.Y.), 57(6): 765-783.

Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. 2009. The rise of CSR: implications for HRM and

employee representation. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

20(4): 953-973.

Provis, C. 1996. Unitarism, pluralism, interests and values. British Journal of Industrial

Relations, 34(4): 473-495.

Roddick, A. 1991. Body and soul: Profits with principles, the amazing success story of

Anita Roddick & The Body Shop. New York: Crown.

Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. 2008. Evidence in management and

organizational science: Assembling the field's full weight of scientific knowledge

through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 475-515.

Rowley, C. & Warner, M. 2007. Introduction: Globalizing international human resource

management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(5): 703-

716.

35

Scherer, A.G. & Palazzo, G. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate social

responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy

of Management Review, 32(4): 1096-1120.

Scherer, A.G. & Palazzo, G. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A

review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and

democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4): 899-931.

Scherer, A.G. and Voegtlin,C. 2011. MNCs as political actors in a post-national world:

Challenges and implications for human resource management. University of

Zurich, Chair of Foundations of Business Administration and Theories of the Firm:

Working Paper No. 205.

Sharma, S., Sharma, J., & Devi, A. 2009. Corporate social responsibility: The key role of

human resource management. Business Intelligence Journal, 2(1): 205-213.

Shen, J. 2011. Developing the concept of socially responsible international human resource

management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(6): 1351-

1363.

Shen, J. & Jiuhua Zhu, C. 2011. Effects of socially responsible human resource management

on employee organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 22(15): 3020-3035.

Smith, V. & Langford, P. 2011. Responsible or redundant? Engaging the workforce through

corporate social responsibility. Australian Journal of Management (Sage

Publications Inc.), 36(3): 425-447.

Sousa Filho, J.M. & Farache, F. 2011. Corporate social strategy and the generation of

benefits: Case studies in the Brazilian electricity and supermarket industries. Latin

American Business Review, 12(2): 99-121.

36

Sukserm, T. & Takahashi, Y. 2012. Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationships between

learning and ethical behavior from human resource development in corporate social

responsibility activity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 4(1): 8-22.

Thompson, J.A. & Bunderson, J.S. 2003. Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the

psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28(4): 571-586.

Tichy, N.M., Fombrun, C.J., & Devanna, M.A. 1982. Strategic human resource management.

Sloan Management Review, 23(2): 47-61.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing

evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British

Journal of Management, 14(3): 207-222.

Van Buren, H.J., Greenwood, M., & Sheehan, C. 2011. Strategic human resource

management and the decline of employee focus. Human Resource Management

Review, 21(3): 209-219.

Vives, A. 2006. Social and environmental responsibility in small and medium enterprises in

Latin America. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (21): 39-50.

Vuontisjärvi, T. 2006. Corporate Social Reporting in the European Context and Human

Resource Disclosures: An Analysis of Finnish Companies. Journal of Business

Ethics, 69(4): 331-354.

Welikala, D. & Sohal, A. 2008. Total Quality Management and employees' involvement: A

case study of an Australian organisation. Total Quality Management, 19(6): 627-642.

Westermann-Behaylo, M.K., Van Buren, H.J., & Berman, S.L. 2012. The influence of

institutional logics on corporate responsibility towards employees. Business &

Society, forthcoming

Young, I.M. 2006. Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social

Philosophy & Policy, 23(1): 102-130.

37

FIGURE 1 Publications Over Time

Note. The figure displays publications till 2011. A further 12 articles were retrieved till the end of the research period in July 2012. From 1975 till 1998, each of the dots indicates the publication of one article per year.

FIGURE 2 Various Depictions of the Relationship Between CSR and HRM Arising From the

Systematic Review

Note. This diagram provides schematic descriptions, not a causal model

0

5

10

15

20

25

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year of publication

Num

bero

fpub

licat

ions

HRM effective HRM/

responsible HRM

HRM strategic

engagement/non-strategic

engagement

CSR strategic CSR/non-

strategic CSR

as enabler of (1)

as enabler of (3)

HRM as evidence

(2)

38

TABLE 1 Summary of Literature Search Results, n (%)

Year of Publication 1975-1990 1991-2000 2001-2008 2009-2012

incubation

incremental growth substantial growth

Number of Articles: 4 (3) 6 (5) 32 (28) 73 (63)

Type of Publication

Original Research Review/Comment Practitioner

Conference/ Working Paper

Number of Articles: 83 (72) 9 (8) 14 (12) 9 (8)

Type of Journal

Business Ethics/CSR HRM

General Management

Other Management Related Journals Working paper Other

Number of Articles: 30 (26) 26 (23) 21 (18) 21 (18) 7 (6) 10 (9)

Type of Article Conceptual Empirical Other Number of Articles: 41 (36) 71 (62) 3 (3)

Focal Unit of Analysis Managers Organizations Employees Other Stakeholders Other Absent Number of Articles: 25 (22) 94 (82) 33 (29) 9 (8) 8 (7) 1 (1)

Geographical Region North America Europe Australia Asia

Africa/ Middle East

South America None

Number of Articles: 23 (29) 24 (21) 4 (3) 12 (10) 4 (3) 3 (3) 46 (40)

HRM-CSR Relationship HRM is Part of CSR

CSR is Part of HRM

HRM and CSR Overlap

HRM and CSR Discussed but no Overlap

Number of Articles: 64 (56) 29 (25) 16 (14) 6 (5) Note. N=115; Focal Unit of Analysis: Articles were coded into more than one category hence add to >100%; Geographical Region adds up to 101% as one article was

explicitly investigating Germany and Brazil and was coded for both geographical regions

39

TABLE 2 HRM-CSR Relationship According to Type of Journal

HRM-CSR Relationship HRM is Part of CSR

CSR is Part of HRM

HRM and CSR Overlap

HRM and CSR Discussed but no Overlap

Total

Type of Journal Business Ethics/CSR 19 (17) 5 (4) 6 (5) 0 (0) 30 (26)

HRM 11 (10) 9 (8) 3 (3) 3 (3) 26 (23) General Management 14 (12) 4 (3) 1 (1) 2 (2) 21 (18) Other Management Related Journals 12 (10) 6 (5) 3 (3) 0 (0) 21 (18) Other 3 (3) 5 (4) 2 (2) 0 (0) 10 (9) Working Paper 5 (4) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 7 (6) Total 64 (56) 29 (25) 16 (14) 6 (5) 115 (100)

40

TABLE 3 Exemplary Quotes Underpinning the HRM-CSR Classification

CSR-HRM Relationship

Indication Exemplary Quotations

HRM is part of CSR

HRM is part/ an element/ evidence of CSR

"Ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) works at multiple levels in organizations, beginning at the individual level and the accountability of individual employees and managers, to the responsibility of corporations to their employees and the communities at large through CSR. One important theme we wanted to address in this special issue is the importance of considering the employee in an organization’s ethical and CSR assessment of stakeholders." (Berkley & Watson, 2009: 275) "The KLD analyzes corporate employee relations’ strengths and concerns based on an extensive evaluation of each company’s union relations, labor policy, employee benefit, employee involvement, and compliance with labor related regulations" (Chen et al., 2008: 136) "Employee CSR has been defined in terms of work environment, fairness of wages, employer CSR orientation and effective communication" (Cherouyot & Maru, 2011: 4) "In the light of the results of this research we could conclude that those savings banks that institutionalize a social responsiveness process — involving highcommitment HR practices in order to respond to their employees’ interests — experience greater profitability" (Déniz-Déniz & Saá-Pérez, 2003: 313) "Employee relations that describe the extent of the involvement of employees in CSR-related initiatives, such as the employee development program or the extent to which the company is concerned about employee-related issues" (Lehmann et al., 2010: 157) "This paper focuses on one particular area of CSR, human resource management (HRM)" (Vuontisjärvi, 2006: 332) "Hatcher (2000) and Bansal and Kandola (2004) stated that organizations could apply corporate social responsibility (CSR) not only to realize environmental and/or social values but also to help construct an ethical mind of employees in terms of honesty and trust. Prachachatdurakit (2006) believed that CSR can assist employees’ discipline and sympathy through CSR activity. This phenomenon is considered to be 'human resource development (HRD) in CSR activity'” (Sukserm & Takahashi, 2012: 9) "It is our argument here that HRD can make an important contribution to the processes that are utilized to embed CSR and CS in organizations" (Garavan et al., 2010: 599) "Understanding the sensemaking processes will illuminate how HRD professionals can contribute to the achievement of the triple bottom line CSR philosophy and ensure CSR goals and objectives are realistic and not rhetoric. We propose a conceptual model that elucidates the potential positive impact of HRD interventions" (MacKenzie et al. 2012: 1)

41

CSR is part of HRM

CSR is part/ a tool/ an enabler of HRM either instrumental or ethical

"[…] it is clear that CSR, or its dimension associated with the treatment of employees, overlaps with – and has the biggest impact on – human resource management" (Bohdanowicz & Zientara, 2008: 276) "Yet concrete results of this process have so far been limited. This is particularly the case for the area we focus on here, the 'social' dimension of corporate responsibility and its role in promoting improvements in working conditions" (Deakin & Hobbs, 2007: 68) "This article investigates social responsibility (SR) and human resources management practices focused on internal stakeholders, namely employees" (Mankelow, 2008: 2171) "The study finds that corporate social strategy provides several benefits, among them attracting and retaining valuable human resources and enhancing company image and reputation" (Sousa Filho & Farache, 2011: 99) "Three major components of an SR-HRM system there emerge these discussions. They are labour law-related legal compliance HRM; employee-oriented HRM and general CSR facilitation HRM (Shen & Zhu, 2011: 3022) "Hence, four criteria have emerged to characterize SRIHRM. They are (1) legal compliance IHRM practices; (2) employee-oriented IHRM; (3) general CSR facilitator IHRM practices and (4) local sustainability contributor IHRM practices" (Shen, 2011: 1358-1359)

CSR and HRM overlap

CSR and HRM overlap/ should be integrated

"Two-way relationship between CSR and HRM" (Cooke & He, 2010: Figure 1, p. 358) "HR and CSR in micro and small organisations [...] are far more interwoven than in large organisations, with the same groups or individuals being the decision makers for most business decisions" (Davies & Crane, 2010, p. 129) "Figure 2 represents the current trends observed through the comparative analysis of corporate situations. Each circle represents a domain seen either as HR, CSR or at the overlap of both areas. The overlap corresponds to what is regarded as ‘good HRM’; that is, a socially sensitive approach to HR. It also encompasses practices which are regarded as both HR and CSR, such as gender equity or policies targeting disabled employees" (Gond et al. 2011: 123) "The purpose of this study is to develop a conceptual framework in order to analyse the relationship between corporate social responsibility and strategie human resource (HR) management. Thus far, both disciplines have advanced in isolation. Therefore, this paper aims to examine if a combination of these research lines can provide competitive advantages for enterprises. Specifically, we will analyse how a socially responsible orientation in the HRs practices can contribute to the achievement of these advantages through performance variables, such as work enviromnent and intellectual capital" (Barrena-Martinez et al., 2011: 173) "The present study, therefore, is an attempt to explore the engagement of human resource management professionals in undertaking Corporate Social Responsibility. It also suggests Human Resource Management to take a leading role in encouraging CSR activities at all levels. The combined impact of CSR and human resource activities, which reinforce desirable behavior, can make a major contribution in creating long term success in organizations" (Sharma et al., 2009: 205)