Running head: HRD IN EMBEDDING CSR 1

The Role of HRD in Embedding

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Organizations

Working Paper submitted to

the 17th International Research Conference on HRD across Europe

Stream: Scholarly Practitioner Research

Soebin Jang and Alexandre Ardichvili

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

HRD AND CSR 2

Abstract

While corporate social responsibility (CSR) has attracted significant interest from both

scholars and practitioners, an emerging challenge is to understand the link between

CSR and human resource development (HRD) functions to benefit stakeholders and

improve human sustainability. We propose to critically examine and identify the

important roles of HRD in embedding CSR in business organizations. We draw on

Karen Watkins’ (1989) five philosophical metaphors for HRD and focus on the roles that

are deeply rooted in HRD philosophy and on areas of CSR-related work, in which HRD

can make most important contributions through its core expertise, processes, and tools.

The paper starts by providing a brief overview of the CSR embedding process in

business organizations, followed by a discussion on the purpose of HRD and its

relevance to CSR. Then, a conceptual framework is proposed describing how and

under what conditions HRD professionals can make an important contribution to

embedding CSR. We conclude with implications for research and practice.

Keywords: Human resource development, corporate social responsibility,

business ethics, theory and practice

HRD AND CSR 3

The Role of HRD in Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Organizations

Introduction

Business organizations around the world face increasing pressure to behave in a

socially responsible and ethical way (Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Garriga and Mele,

2004). A recent global survey reported that an increasing number of companies are

disclosing their non-financial performance in an effort to become transparent and

responsible in doing business (KPMG, 2013). While the topic of corporate social

responsibility (CSR) has attracted significant interest from both scholars and

practitioners (Hart, 2005; Porter and Kramer, 2002), an emerging challenge is to

understand the link between CSR and human resource development (HRD) functions to

benefit stakeholders and improve human sustainability (Ardichvili, 2011; Fenwick, 2014;

Garavan and McGuire, 2010; Pfeffer, 2010).

Problem Statement

HRD can play an important role in embedding CSR, sustainability, and ethics in

organizations (Ardichvili and Jondle, 2009; Ardichvili, 2013; Fenwick and Bierema,

2008; Garavan and McGuire, 2010; Hatcher, 2002). HRD scholars have conducted

research in related areas, including socially-conscious HRD (Bierema and D’Abundo,

2004; Fenwick and Bierema, 2008), the role of HRD in societal development (e.g. Kim,

2012), stakeholder-based HRD (Baek and Kim, 2014), and green HRD (e.g. Valentin,

2015). However, research on roles that HRD can play in embedding CSR and research

on specific approaches that could be most efficient in embedding and promoting CSR is

still limited. Further research is needed to provide HRD practitioners with specific

guidance on how to embed CSR in organizations (Fenwick, 2014; Garavan and

McGuire, 2010). The purpose of this paper is to critically examine and identify the

important roles of HRD in embedding CSR in business organizations. To make an

effective contribution, we argue that HRD professionals need to better position

themselves through strategically aligning HRD interventions with organizational goals

and the CSR agenda, grounding HRD’s contributions in the philosophy and values of

the field, and taking a balanced and collaborative approach in the process. Thus, we

HRD AND CSR 4

focus on the roles that are deeply rooted in HRD philosophy and on areas of CSR-

related work, in which HRD can make most important contributions through its core

expertise, processes, and tools. We draw on Karen Watkins’ (1989) five philosophical

metaphors for HRD, namely Organizational Problem Solver, Organizational Change

Agent/Interventionist or Helper, Organizational Designer, Organizational

Empowerer/Meaning Maker, and Developer of Human Capital. Metaphors can be useful

in adding meaning to concepts and developing new theories (Cornelissen, 2004; Weick,

1989). The importance to understand and apply metaphors in research has been

highlighted (Kuchinke, 2001; Short, 2001), and previous studies have identified and

effectively used metaphors within the HRD field (e.g. Ardichvili, 2001; Daley, 2001;

Hutchins and Wang, 2008; Kraemer, 2001).

Drawing on the five philosophical metaphors for HRD and the underlying theories

that inform each role, we sought to answer the following questions:

1. What are the roles of HRD in embedding CSR in organizations?

2. What specific approaches are most effective in embedding and promoting

CSR in organizations?

Methodology

We reviewed the related literature in HRD and other relevant fields such as

management, human resource management (HRM), business ethics, organization

studies, and adult education through online databases including Academic Search

Premier, EBSCO Information Services, Business Source Premier, and Emerald. In

addition, we conducted targeted search of a sample of most relevant to this project

journals, to include: Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management

Learning & Education, Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics: A European

Review, Organization Science, The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, Human Resource Development Review, Human Resource Development

International, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Advances in Developing

Human Resources, and European Journal of Training and Development.

We start by providing a brief overview of the CSR embedding process in

business organizations, followed by a discussion on the purpose of HRD and its

HRD AND CSR 5

relevance to CSR. Then, we propose a conceptual framework describing how and

under what conditions HRD professionals can make an important contribution to

embedding CSR, drawing on the five philosophical metaphors for HRD. We conclude

with implications for research and practice.

Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility

A common definition of corporate social responsibility is “the continuing

commitment by business to contribute to economic development while improving the

quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the community and society

at large.” (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, n.d.). This entails that

businesses not only have the responsibility to make profit through producing goods and

services but also attend to legal responsibilities and meet ethical norms in doing

business (Carroll, 1991). In doing so, organizations need to consider the wider interests

of multiple stakeholders (Freeman, 1984) and balance economic, social and

environmental goals, often described as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) (Elkington, 1997).

Embedding CSR is perceived as a change process and requires an organization

to alter its current norms, values, and business goals towards CSR principles (Cramer,

2005; Maon, Lindgreen, and Swaen, 2009). Extant research describes two different

perspective on drivers of adopting the CSR agenda: internal drivers and external drivers

(Swanson, 1999). External drivers may include institutional and regulatory pressure,

stakeholder demands, and market competition (Bansal, 2003; Carroll, 1999). Internal

drivers may arise from personal values of top management, moral and ethical norms,

and the organizational culture (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, and Ganapathi, 2007; Carroll,

2000). Others have argued to integrate the two perspectives in understanding the

motivations towards CSR (Jones, 1995).

From the extant CSR literature, a number of aspects have been identified as

critical in embedding and promoting CSR in organizations (Haugh and Talwar, 2010;

Lyon, 2004; Maignan, Farrell, and Farrell, 2005; Maon et al., 2009; Werre, 2003).

Strong commitment and support of top-management are the foundation for formulation

and communication to the organization of a long-term CSR vision (Cramer, 2005;

Werre, 2003). Stakeholder engagement is important in identifying and integrating

HRD AND CSR 6

different needs within the organization and in the broader society (Maignan et al., 2005).

CSR values and principles need to be embedded at the core of the organizational

culture that embraces responsibility (Rimanoczy and Pearson, 2010). This in turn allows

employees to be more receptive of long-term CSR values of the organization (Lyon,

2004). The organizational culture needs to be supported by CSR-enabling structures

such as codes of conduct, policies, monitoring and evaluating systems, and effective

communication channels (Maon et al., 2009). A learning and development orientation is

critical in raising awareness among employees and sustaining long-term CSR strategies

(Ardichvili, 2012; Haugh and Talwar, 2010). This requires fostering continuous learning,

double-loop learning, and critical reflection in the organization (Bierema and D’Abundo,

2004; Cramer, 2005).

The Purpose of HRD and its Relevance to CSR

As an interdisciplinary field, the definition and purpose of HRD have long been

contested (Hamlin and Stewart, 2011; Wang and Sun, 2009; Weinberger, 1998). With a

primary focus on improving performance of individuals and organizations, HRD has

been defined as ‘a process of developing and/or unleashing human expertise through

organization development (OD) and personnel training and development (T&D) for the

purpose of improving performance’ (Swanson, 2001, pp. 304). This positions

organization development and training and development as central domains of HRD

with the aim to develop human expertise and implement systematic organizational

change (Swanson, 2001; Weinberger, 1998).

However, HRD professionals have been criticized for focusing its efforts on short-

term profit maximization rather than long-term human development in organizations

(Fenwick and Bierema, 2008; Garavan and McGuire, 2010; Sambrook, 2009). HRD

professionals are often expected to capitalize on shareholder value through the

improvement of employee performance (Hatcher, 2002). Consequently, the design of

HRD interventions privileges organizational needs such as improving performance and

maximizing profit over social responsibility (Fenwick and Bierema, 2008).

A common role shared among HRD and CSR is the commitment towards the

development of employees and the organization (Collier and Esteban, 2007; Fenwick

HRD AND CSR 7

and Bierema, 2008). Linking employee development principles to triple bottom-line

objectives of the organization can lead to long-term sustained competitive advantage

(Colbert and Kurucz, 2007). HRD professionals need to be reflective and consciously

focus on the moral and ethical dimensions of the field when approaching human

development (Fenwick and Bierema, 2008; Kuchinke, 2014). Further, HRD models and

frameworks in both research and practice to be re-examined to incorporate socially

responsible and ethical principles along with efficiency and performance (Hatcher,

2002). This can be realized through HRD’s active engagement in various interrelated

activities such as culture change efforts and education and training in ethics and

corporate responsibility for both employees and the organization (Ardichvili, 2013;

Jamali, Dirani, and Harwood, 2015).

A Conceptual Framework: The Role of HRD in Embedding CSR

Despite the growing interest in promoting ethical and socially responsible

practices within the workplace, researchers have found a noticeable gap between

normative statements, made in research articles, and the reality of organizational

practice (Ehnert, 2009; Fenwick and Bierema, 2008). Thus, Fenwick and Bierema

(2008) found that HRD professionals were seldom involved in CSR activities in

organizations. At the same time, their findings suggested that not only the organizations’

industry, structure, and culture but also how the HRD function is positioned in the

organization influenced the extent of HRD’s involvement in CSR initiatives.

HRD’s ability can be more often limited in addressing such issues and drive

significant change within the organization (Fenwick and Bierema, 2008; Watkins, 2000).

HRD professionals may not be able to play lead roles in all cases as important roles

may be taken by functional leaders in other divisions of the organization, including CSR,

business ethics, risk and compliance, and public relations departments. (Ardichvili,

2012). This may require HRD professionals to balance their involvement by taking on

active lead roles or supportive and collaborative roles depending on the needs of the

organization. Nevertheless, HRD professionals should be aware of CSR-related issues

and be prepared with the necessary tools to promote long-term change of members and

core values of the organization (Ardichvili, 2012; Hatcher, 2002).

HRD AND CSR 8

Drawing on Karen Watkins’ (1989) five philosophical metaphors for HRD theory

and practice, we propose a conceptual framework to demonstrate the specific roles of

HRD professionals in embedding and promoting CSR in organizations. The five

philosophical metaphors are well established to demonstrate HRD’s important

contributions in embedding CSR as each role is deeply grounded in HRD’s diverse

philosophical foundations including but not limited to systems theory, gestalt

psychology, action science, critical theory, and human capital theory (Watkins, 1989).

This is not an attempt to describe the step-by-step process of embedding CSR. Rather,

our goal is to highlight the specific roles and approaches, through which HRD

professionals can make significant contributions to embedding and promoting CSR in

organizations.

Figure 1. A Conceptual Framework for the Roles of HRD in Embedding CSR

The conceptual framework (Figure 1) describes how HRD professionals can

make important contributions in embedding CSR in business organizations.

Organizations are driven by different motivations in adopting CSR (Swanson, 1999),

and the embedding process needs to be tailored to the organizational goals and the

specific business context (Maon et al., 2009). Thus, the specific roles and focus of HRD

professionals will depend on the drivers and stage of implementation.

Further, HRD professionals need to better position themselves by strategically

aligning HRD’s contribution to the organizational mission, vision, and goals that support

HRD AND CSR 9

the CSR agenda (Garavan and McGuire, 2010) and grounding HRD’s tools, processes,

and expertise in the philosophical foundations of the field (Kuchinke, 1999). HRD

professionals also need to be aware of the key CSR issues and take a balanced

approach through coordinated efforts in supporting effectiveness, human development,

and long-term sustainability of the organization (Ardichvili, 2012; Kuchinke, 2010).

In the following section, we illustrate how each of the five HRD metaphors,

namely Organizational Problem Solver, Organizational Change Agent, Organizational

Empowerer and Meaning Maker, Organizational Designer, and Developer of Human

Capital, based on their underlying theories and philosophical foundations, can

specifically contribute in embedding and promoting CSR in organizations.

Problem solver

HRD professionals as problem solvers adopt a holistic view in understanding and

responding to complex problems surrounding the organization and provide effective

solutions (Watkins, 1989). This view is grounded in systems theory, which is widely

accepted as a core foundation of the HRD field and enables HRD professionals to

understand complex systems through unfolding the whole and the interactions of its

parts (Ruona, 1998; Swanson, 2001; Yawson, 2012). The process of embedding CSR

varies among organizations depending on the specific circumstances and requires a

tailored approach (Cramer, Van Der Heijden, and Jonker, 2006). Through systems

thinking, HRD professionals can provide customized and systematic solutions to take

into account various factors specific to the organization such as size, industry, and

institutional context and avoid a ‘one size fits all’ approach (Garavan and McGuire,

2010).

Further, implementing a CSR agenda requires considering multiple levels,

including the societal, the organizational, and the individual level in developing the CSR

agenda (Cavagnaro and Curiel, 2012). HRD professionals can contribute to the process

of developing CSR objectives and strategies through articulating the importance and

benefits of learning and development strategies at all levels of the organization as a

core part of the CSR agenda. This requires HRD to strategically incorporate CSR issues

into the HRD vision, mission, and strategies (Garavan and McGuire, 2010) and balance

HRD AND CSR 10

the focus on all economic, social, and environmental performance in daily operations

(Ardichvili, 2012; Colbert and Kurucz, 2007).

Change agent

Grounded in Lewinian values of organizational change, HRD professionals as

change agents aim to support both individual and organizational change (Watkins,

1989). Field theory, Gestalt psychology, and action research primarily inform this role,

and it is believed that HRD professionals can improve the lives of people and

organizations through learning and change efforts (Watkins, 2000). In embedding CSR,

organizational members need to first understand and make sense of CSR issues and

principles (Cramer, 2005). Change agents play an important catalyst role in developing

a specific CSR meaning pertaining to the values and long-term goals of the organization

(Cramer, 2005; Maon et al., 2009). This also requires change agents to continuously

reflect on their own behaviors to ensure and maintain autonomy, informed choice, and

health of stakeholders involved in the change process (Maon et al., 2009; Watkins,

1989). HRD professionals are equipped with the knowledge and tools to facilitate the

CSR embedding process through fostering change readiness within the organization

(Garavan, Heraty, Rock, and Dalton, 2010; Jamali et al., 2015). HRD interventions at

the management level can play an important role in overcoming resistance to CSR

initiatives and place learning and development in the center of implementing CSR

(Fenwick and Bierema, 2008). HRD professionals can also utilize approaches such as

force-field analysis to analyze and identify effective change interventions to reduce

barriers to change (Watkins, 1989).

CSR-oriented organizations contribute to the wider society through continuous

engagement with broader stakeholders to understand changing societal values,

demands, and expectations (Freeman, 1984; Porter and Kramer, 2002). HRD

professionals can leverage stakeholders to develop ongoing dialogues and build

consensus on important CSR-related issues to the organization (Garavan and McGuire,

2010). This involves active participation in identifying and prioritizing key stakeholders

and designing systems that enable stakeholders to engage in numerous CSR-related

policy developments (Fenwick and Bierema, 2008).HRD professionals can also promote

HRD AND CSR 11

and reinforce behaviors benefiting communities through organizational learning tools

and collaborative social learning approaches (Garavan et al., 2010). This requires HRD

to utilize large-scale organization development interventions along with training and

education programs in close partnerships with broader stakeholders (Kim, 2012).

Stolz (2014) discussed the importance for HRD to utilize its organization

development (OD) expertise to increase organizations’ responsiveness to societal

demands and argued that OD needs to redefine its role to address the triple bottom line,

which needs to be in conjunction with efforts in identifying best practices and developing

the capacity of leaders and employees in effectively managing corporate citizenship.

Further, many CSR initiatives require cross-functional collaboration among multiple

functions and teams (Garavan and McGuire, 2010). HRD professionals can foster

collaborative efforts and learning for employees and stakeholders through utilizing

action learning, social learning, and communities of practice approaches, among others

(Ardichvili, 2012; Garavan et al. 2010).

Empowerer and meaning maker

HRD professionals as empowerers and meaning makers promote critical

reflection to transform individuals and organizations, and aim to achieve long-term

health and effectiveness (Watkins, 1989). This role is grounded in critical theory, and

critical theorists challenge the masculine and performative orientation of HRD and argue

for a critical and socially conscious approach to transform the workplace through

including diverse stakeholders, balancing power relations, and providing non-oppressive

models (Bierema and D’Abundo, 2004; Bierema, 2009). This alternative view focuses

on critiquing “what is” and offering “what might be” through stimulating self-reflection of

organizational members and valuing a democratic HRD approach (Bierema and

Callahan, 2014; Watkins, 1989).

Adopting a CSR agenda requires a process of redefining current organizational

missions, values, and assumptions to embed value-driven and CSR-oriented principles

(Maon et al., 2009). This involves constant reflection upon behaviors of leaders and

employees during the implementation process (Cramer, 2005). To effectively contribute

to the CSR agenda, HRD professionals need to familiarize themselves with CSR-related

HRD AND CSR 12

principles and initiatives within the organization and determine their roles in contributing

to the objectives (Fenwick and Bierema, 2008). They need to first be more reflective of

their own practices in being ethical and socially responsible (Bierema and D’Abundo,

2004; Fenwick and Bierema, 2008; Hatcher, 2002). This requires HRD professionals to

be more socially conscious in daily practice and “educate organizations about social

responsibility and use HRD strategies to integrate social consciousness into

organization activities that could potentially affect significant social change” (Bierema

and D’Abundo, 2004, p.444). HRD professionals need to act as a role model in

promoting continuous reflection, fostering socially conscious and responsible behaviors,

and negotiating conflicting interests and power-relations in the organization (Ardichvili,

2012; Bierema and D’Abundo, 2004).

Furthermore, HRD should be mindful of the power differentials within

organizations and take on the role as a ‘power broker’ in managing complex

relationships in effectively embedding CSR and ethics (Ardichvili, 2013). HRD

professionals need to recognize that specific interest groups may be underprivileged in

decision-making processes and advocate for diverse stakeholder needs through

analyzing and negotiating power relationships and ensuring equal opportunities for

learning and development in the organization (Ardichvili, 2013; Bierema and D’Abundo,

2004).

Organizational designer

Drawing on Herbert Simon’s (1965) administrative decision-making theory, HRD

professionals as organizational designers are capable of connecting the organization,

the structure, and the development of employees in achieving organizational goals

(Watkins, 1989). This involves diagnosing the environment, inventing and designing

structures and programs, and selecting effective actions based on available options

(Watkins, 1989). Thus, HRD professionals can take a systems approach in continuously

assessing the needs to design and implement structures and programs to support CSR-

related goals. This may require consultation with key business functions and

stakeholders in identifying important CSR issues to the organization (Maon et al., 2009).

HRD AND CSR 13

Implementation of codes of conduct, policies, monitoring and evaluating systems,

and effective communication channels are considered critical in embedding and

internalizing CSR (Haugh and Talwar, 2010). For example, HRD professionals can

promote responsible business practices by designing and communicating ethical and

CSR-related codes of conduct, training employees on CSR-related issues, and

managing compliance and monitoring systems (Hatcher, 2002; Winstanley and

Woodall, 2000). Formal and informal reward systems, when effectively aligned with

CSR goals and principles, can encourage positive behaviors of employees towards

CSR principles and continuous learning (Lyon, 2004; Garavan et al., 2010).

Further, communicating such policies and codes of conduct within the

organization is essential in embedding CSR initiatives (Haugh and Talwar, 2010), and

HRD professionals can utilize their expertise in promoting continuous dialog through

effective communication channels (Garavan et al., 2010). Transparent communication

of CSR principles and progress towards CSR objectives to employees and stakeholders

can increase awareness and commitment to the organization’s social responsibility

(Garavan et al., 2010; Jamali et al., 2015).

Deep integration of CSR principles into everyday practices requires CSR to be

embedded at the core of the organizational culture (Ehnert, 2009). HRD professionals

are known to play a central role in cultural change efforts and can support the

organization in developing a culture that embraces CSR (Liebowitz, 2010; Sroufe,

Liebowitz, and Sivasubramaniam, 2010). Researchers have argued that HRD’s efforts

in promoting CSR and sustainability should be supported through creating an ethical

business culture (Ardichvili and Jondle, 2009; Foote and Ruona, 2008). Studies have

found that the role of top leadership, formal training programs, an explicit code of

conduct, and clear communication were crucial in developing ethical corporate cultures

(e.g. Small, 2006). HRD professionals can contribute to embedding an ethical culture

through engaging leaders and building necessary infrastructures in promoting ethical

and responsible business practices (Foote and Ruona, 2008).

Developer of human capital

HRD AND CSR 14

Human capital theory posits that the investment in human capital to develop

employees’ skills and knowledge can enhance productivity and improve organizational

performance (Becker, 1964). Rooted in economics, human capital theory serves HRD

professionals with a strong bottom-line approach to learning and development as a

foundation in the HRD field (Nafukho, Hairston, and Brooks, 2004; Swanson, 2001).

Investment in developing human capital not only returns economic value to the

organization but also addresses the long-term value and quality of work life of

employees (Watkins, 1989; Weinberger, 1998). HRD leaders need to proactively

educate organizational members about the central roles of HRD in embedding CSR and

ethics through demonstrating what can be done through utilizing core HRD interventions

(Ardichvili, 2013). This involves fostering continuous learning and critical reflection on

past values and principles through a form of double-loop learning (Cramer, 2005; Maon

et al., 2009). HRD professionals may actively promote organizational learning,

leadership development interventions, and other learning and development strategies in

supporting CSR principles and engaging employees at all levels of the organization

(Fenwick and Bierema, 2008; Garavan et al., 2010). Such training and development

programs are a key area where HRD professionals’ expert role is unchallenged and

where they can make one of the most important contributions to the organization

(Ardichvili, 2011).

Leadership development is regarded as one of the most important strategies for

promoting CSR (Ardichvili et al., 2009; Gond, Igalens, Swaen, and Akremi, 2011). A key

role of HRD professionals is to ensure that leaders and employees clearly understand,

appreciate, and value the concept of CSR (Fenwick and Bierema, 2008). Learning and

development strategies such as global service learning, experiential learning, and

knowledge sharing can be used effectively in promoting CSR in organizations (Haugh

and Talwar, 2010). Such learning experiences are known to be highly effective in

sensitizing participants to broader social and ethical issues through fostering reflection

and consciousness-raising (Lester, Tomkovick, Wells, Flunker, and Kickul, 2005; Mirvis,

2008). Pless, Maak and Stahl (2011) reported on an integrated service-learning

program aiming to develop responsible leadership of executives. The program sent

team of leaders to work on CSR-related issues in developing countries through

HRD AND CSR 15

partnering with NGOs, social entrepreneurs, or international organizations. The authors

found evidence that these experiences helped the participants develop a more

responsible mind-set through learning at the cognitive, affective, and behavioral levels.

Similarly, Gitsham (2012) described successful experiential learning programs at two

global organizations: HSBC and IBM. Both programs aimed to develop the mindsets

and skills of employees and future leaders in dealing with CSR-related issues through

working closely with NGOs and CSR-related organizations. Findings showed that

participants were able to develop greater commitment towards global and sustainability-

related issues and gain further confidence in advocating change in the workplace.

Ethics and CSR awareness programs aim to support employees in learning and

adopting responsible business practices (Cramer, 2005; Garavan et al., 2010). Studies

have found that implementing CSR programs and providing training on CSR-related

issues in organizations yielded positive attitudes among employees towards both the

organization and the society (e.g. Rodrigo and Arenas, 2008). The main purpose is to

increase employee motivation towards CSR-related issues and promote responsible

work practices through improving CSR literacy and raising awareness (Fenwick and

Bierema, 2008; Schminke, Ambrose, and Neubaum, 2005). Proper implementation of

such programs can strengthen an organization’s ethics and culture and put CSR-related

initiatives at the center of attention (Garavan et al., 2010).

Further, CSR-related learning and development interventions need to be

continuously measured, evaluated, and reported to employees to ensure continuous

improvement and commitment (Garavan and McGuire, 2010; Maon et al., 2009). HRD

professionals need to ensure HRD efforts are included in the evaluations and provide

the appropriate tools and processes to develop measures aligned with the CSR agenda

(Garavan and McGuire, 2010). This should also involve transparently demonstrating

how the organization’s business practices and CSR agenda affect stakeholders in the

wider community (Bierema and D’Abundo, 2004).

Conclusion

Through our conceptual framework, we have described the important areas

where HRD professionals can contribute to embedding CSR in business organizations.

HRD AND CSR 16

Deeply embedding CSR in organizations requires above all long-term leadership

commitment, continuous learning and development, and the collaborative efforts of

multiple functions and stakeholders (Cramer, 2005; Maon et al., 2009). If CSR is not

embedded properly into the culture and daily business practices, the organization’s

reputation may be at risk and the CSR agenda may be perceived as mere public

relations campaigns or “window dressing” (Weaver, Trevino, and Cochran, 1999). Thus,

it is important for HRD professionals to effectively contribute by grounding its tools,

processes, and expertise in the philosophical foundations of the field, strategically

aligning HRD interventions and strategies with the organizational and CSR vision and

goals, and taking a balanced and collaborative approach.

The significance of this paper is twofold. Our study proposes a conceptual

framework drawing on the five important roles grounded in HRD philosophy by

integrating research in the field of CSR and HRD. It provides a foundation for future

studies to explore and empirically test HRD’s contribution in contributing to CSR in

organizations. This way, we hope to contribute to addressing the gap in literature and

the call for developing clearly articulated models in regards to responsible HRD practice

(Fenwick, 2014; Kuchinke, 2010). From a practical standpoint, we hope our framework

provides useful guidance to HRD professionals and organizations to effectively navigate

their way in embedding a CSR agenda grounded in learning and development

strategies, responsible culture, and organization development interventions.

The roles of HRD professionals in contributing to the CSR agenda should not be

limited to the five roles proposed in this paper. Future research may explore other

possible and effective approaches, through which HRD professionals can play an

important role in supporting and embedding CSR in business organizations and in other

sectors. One promising area would be to explore how HRD professionals may

contribute to embedding responsible business practices in small-to-medium sized

organizations (SME) where resources are scarce as opposed to large business

organizations (Fenwick, 2007).

HRD AND CSR 17

References

AGUILERA, R.V., RUPP, D.E., WILLIAMS, C.A. and GANAPATHI, J. (2007). Putting

the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change

in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), pp.836-863.

ARDICHVILI, A. (2001). Three metaphors for the lives and work of HRD consultants.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(3), 333-343.

ARDICHVILI, A. (2011). Sustainability of nations, communities, organizations, and

individuals: The role of HRD. Human Resource Development International,

14(4), 371-374.

ARDICHVILI, A. (2012). Sustainability or limitless expansion: Paradigm shift in HRD

practice and teaching. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(9),

873-887.

ARDICHVILI, A. (2013). The Role of HRD in CSR, Sustainability, and Ethics a

Relational Model. Human Resource Development Review, 12(4), pp. 456-473.

ARDICHVILI, A. and JONDLE, D. (2009). Integrative literature review: Ethical business

cultures: A literature review and implications for HRD. Human Resource

Development Review, 8(2), pp.223-244.

ARDICHVILI, A., MITCHELL, J. A., and JONDLE, D. (2009). Characteristics of ethical

business cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), pp. 445-451.

BAEK, P. and KIM, N. (2014). Exploring a theoretical foundation for HRD in society:

Toward a model of stakeholder-based HRD. Human Resource Development

International, 17(5), 499-513.

BANSAL, P. (2003). From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and

organizational values in responding to natural environmental issues.

Organization Science, 14(5), pp.510-527.

BECKER, G. S. (1964) Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with

Special Reference to Education, New York: Columbia University Press.

HRD AND CSR 18

BIEREMA, L.L. (2009). Critiquing human resource development's dominant masculine

rationality and evaluating its impact. Human Resource Development Review,

8(1), pp.68-96.

BIEREMA, L. and D’ABUNDO, M. (2004). HRD with a conscience: Practicing socially

responsible HRD. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(5), pp.443-458.

BIEREMA, L. and CALLAHAN, J.L. (2014). Transforming HRD A Framework for Critical

HRD Practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(4), pp.429-444.

CARROLL, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the

moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4),

pp.39-48.

CARROLL, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional

construct. Business & Society, 38(3), pp.268-295.

CARROLL, A.B. (2000). Ethical challenges for business in the new millennium:

Corporate social responsibility and models of management morality. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), pp.33-42.

CARROLL, A. B. and SHABANA, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social

responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal

of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp.85-105.

CAVAGNARO, E. and CURIEL, G. (2012). The three levels of sustainability. Sheffield:

Greenleaf Publishing.

COLBERT, B. A. and KURUCZ, E. C. (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line

business sustainability and the role for HRM. Human Resource Planning, 30(1),

pp.21-19.

COLLIER, J. and ESTEBAN, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee

commitment. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(1), pp.19-33.

CORNELISSEN, J. P. (2004). What are we playing at? Theatre, organization, and the

use of metaphor. Organization Studies, 25(5), pp.705-726.

HRD AND CSR 19

CRAMER, J. (2005). Company learning about corporate social responsibility. Business

Strategy and the Environment, 14(4), pp.255-266.

CRAMER, J., VAN DER HEIJDEN, A. and JONKER, J. (2006). Corporate social

responsibility: making sense through thinking and acting. Business Ethics: A

European Review, 15(4), pp.380-389.

DALEY, B. J. (2001). Metaphors for professional learning. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 3(3), pp.322-332.

EHNERT, I. (2009). Sustainability and Human Resource Management: Reasoning and

applications on corporate websites. European Journal of International

Management, 3(4), pp.419-438.

ELKINGTON, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century. CT:

New Society.

FENWICK, T. (2007). Developing organizational practices of ecological sustainability: A

learning perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(7),

pp.632-645.

FENWICK, T. and BIEREMA, L. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Issues for

human resource development professionals. International Journal of Training and

Development, 12(1), pp.24-35.

FENWICK, T. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility and HRD. In N. E. Chalofsky, T.

S. Rocco & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of human resource development (pp.

164-179). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

FOOTE, M. and ROUNA, W. (2008). Institutionalizing ethics: A synthesis of frameworks

and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 7(3), pp.292-

308.

FREEMAN, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston:

Pitman.

HRD AND CSR 20

GARAVAN, T. and MCGUIRE, D. (2010). Human resource development and society:

Human resource development’s role in embedding corporate social

responsibility, sustainability, and ethics in organizations. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 12(5), pp.487-507.

GARAVAN, T.N., HERATY, N., ROCK, A. and 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), pp.587-613.

GARAVAN, T.N., MCGUIRE, D. and LEE, M. (2015). Reclaiming the “D” in HRD A

Typology of Development Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes.

Human Resource Development Review, 14(4), pp.359-388.

GARRIGA, E. and MELÉ, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping

the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2), pp.51-71.

GITSHAM, M. (2012). Experiential learning for leadership and sustainability at IBM and

HSBC. The Journal of Management Development, 31(3), pp.298-307.

GOND, J.P., IGALENS, J., SWAEN, V. and El AKREMI, A. (2011). The human

resources contribution to responsible leadership: An exploration of the CSR–HR

interface. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), pp.115-132.

HAMLIN, B. and STEWART, J. (2011). What is HRD? A definitional review and

synthesis of the HRD domain. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(3),

pp.199-220.

HART, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of

Management Review, 20(4), pp.986-1014.

HATCHER, T. G. (2002). Ethics and HRD: A new approach to leading responsible

organizations. MA: Basic Books.

HAUGH, H.M. and TALWAR, A. (2010). How do corporations embed sustainability

across the organization?. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3),

pp.384-396.

HRD AND CSR 21

HUTCHINS, H.M. and WANG, J. (2008). Organizational Crisis Management and

Human Resource Development: A Review of the Literature and Implications to

HRD Research and Practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(3),

pp.310-330.

JAMALI, D.R., El DIRANI, A.M. and HARWOOD, I.A. (2015). Exploring human resource

management roles in corporate social responsibility: the CSR‐HRM co‐creation

model. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), pp.125-143.

JONES, T.M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and

economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), pp.404-437.

KIM, N. (2012). Societal development through human resource development contexts

and key change agents. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(3),

pp.239-250.

KPMG. (2013). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013. KPMG

International. Retrieved from

http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/corporate-

responsibility/pages/default.aspx

KRAEMER, T.J. (2001). Generating new metaphors: Downsizing as cancer. Advances

in Developing Human Resources, 3(3), pp.355-365.

KUCHINKE, K.P. (1999). Adult development towards what end? A philosophical

analysis of the concept as reflected in the research, theory, and practice of

human resource development. Adult Education Quarterly, 49(4), pp.148-162.

KUCHINKE, K. P. (2001). Metaphors and paradigms for HRD research and practice.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(3), pp.366-378.

KUCHINKE, K.P. (2010). Human development as a central goal for human resource

development. Human Resource Development International, 13(5), pp.575-585.

HRD AND CSR 22

KUCHINKE, P. K. (2014). Perspectives on the concept of development for HRD. In N.

E. Chalofsky, T. S. Rocco & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of human resource

development (pp. 112-125). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

LESTER, S. W., TOMKOVICK, C., WELLS, T., FLUNKER, L., and KICKUL, J. (2005).

Does service-learning add value? Examining the perspectives of multiple

stakeholders. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(3), pp.278-294.

LIEBOWITZ, J. (2010). The role of HR in achieving a sustainability culture. Journal of

Sustainable Development, 3(4), pp.50-57.

LYON, D. (2004). How can you help organizations change to meet the corporate

responsibility agenda?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 11(3), pp.133-139.

MAIGNAN, I., FERRELL, O.C. and FERRELL, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for

implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing,

39(9/10), pp.956-977.

MAON, F., LINDGREEN, A. and SWAEN, V. (2009). Designing and implementing

corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and

practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), pp.71-89.

MIRVIS, P. (2008). Executive development through consciousness-raising experiences.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2), pp.173-188.

NAFUKHO, F.M., HAIRSTON, N. and BROOKS, K. (2004). Human capital theory:

Implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development

International, 7(4), pp.545-551.

PFEFFER, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of

Management Perspectives, 24(1), 34-45.

PLESS, N.M., MAAK, T. and STAHL, G.K. (2011). Developing responsible global

leaders through international service-learning programs: The Ulysses

experience. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), pp.237-260.

HRD AND CSR 23

PORTER, M. E. and KRAMER, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate

philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), pp.56-68.

RIMANOCZY, I. and PEARSON, T. (2010). Role of HR in the new world of

sustainability. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(1), pp.11-17.

RODRIGO, P. and ARENAS, D. (2008). Do employees care about CSR programs? A

typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics,

83(2), pp.265-283.

RUONA, W.E.A. (1998). Systems theory as a foundation for HRD. In Proceedings of the

1998 Academy of Human Resource Development Conference. Baton Rouge, LA:

Academy of Human Resource Development.

SAMBROOK, S. (2009). Critical HRD: A concept analysis. Personnel Review, 38(1),

pp.61-73.

SCHMINKE, M., AMBROSE, M. L., and NEUBAUM, D. O. (2005). The effect of leader

moral development on ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), pp.135-151.

SHORT, D. C. (2001). Shining a torch on metaphor in HRD. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 3(3), 297-308.

SIMON, H.A. (1965). Administrative decision making. Public Administration Review,

pp.31-37.

SMALL, M. W. (2006). Management development: developing ethical corporate culture

in three organisations. Journal of Management Development, 25(6), pp.588-600.

SROUFE, R., LIEBOWITZ, J., and SIVASUBRAMANIAM, N. (2010). Are you a leader

or a laggard? HR’s role in creating a sustainability culture. People and Strategy,

33(1), pp.34-42.

STOLZ, I. (2014). The role of OD practitioners in developing corporations’ capacity to

practice corporate citizenship: a sociomaterial case study. European Journal of

Training and Development, 38(5), 436-455.

HRD AND CSR 24

SWANSON, D.L. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A

research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management

Review, 24(3), pp.506-521.

SWANSON, R.A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory.

Human Resource Development International, 4(3), pp.299-312.

VALENTIN, C. (2015). Greening HRD conceptualizing the triple bottom line for HRD

practice, teaching, and research. Advances in Developing Human Resources,

17(4), pp.426-441.

WANG, G.G. and SUN, J.Y. (2009). Clarifying the boundaries of human resource

development. Human Resource Development International, 12(1), pp.93-103.

WATKINS, K. E. (1989). Five metaphors: alternative theories for human resource

development, in D. B. Gradous (ed.) Systems Theory Applied to Human

Resource Development. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press, pp. 167–84.

WATKINS, K.E. (2000). Aims, roles, and structures for human resource development.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2(3), pp.54-59.

WEAVER, G.R., TREVINO, L.K. and COCHRAN, P.L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled

corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures,

and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), pp.539-

552.

WEINBERGER, L.A. (1998). Commonly held theories of human resource development.

Human Resource Development International, 1(1), pp.75-93.

WEICK, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), pp.516-531.

WERE, M. (2003). Implementing corporate responsibility—The Chiquita case. Journal of

Business Ethics, 44(2-3), pp.247-260.

HRD AND CSR 25

WINSTANLEY, D. and WOODALL, J. (2000). The ethical dimension of human resource

management. Human Resource Management Journal, 10(2), pp.5-20.

WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. (n.d.). Retrieved

from http://www.wbcsd.org/home.aspx

YAWSON, R.M. (2012). Systems Theory and Thinking as a Foundational Theory in

Human Resource Development—A Myth or Reality?. Human Resource

Development Review, 12(1), pp.53-85.