Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-3
Does “how” firms invest in corporate social responsibility matter? An attributional model of job seekers’ reactions to configurational variation in corporate social responsibility
Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices can increase firm attractiveness, this process can be undermined if CSR activities signal the “wrong” motives to job seekers. Yet, how these attributed motives form, and why job seekers are likely to infer favorable or unfavorable causal attributions underlying CSR activity, remain open questions. We draw on Kelley’s covariation model to address this gap. We develop and test an attributional model exploring job seekers’ reactions to distinct CSR attributional configurations derived from job seekers’ perceptions of CSR consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency. Across a multi-trait, multi-method, multi-sample series of four studies, we demonstrate that different CSR attributional configurations are related to discrete causal attributions (i.e. values-driven, strategic-driven, and egoistic-driven), which are associated with distinct perceptions and employment intentions. We address recent calls to open the “black box” of CSR causal attributions, deepening understanding of why job seekers might also respond negatively to CSR, and the (attributional) psychological processes driving these negative reactions.
AguinisHGlavasA (2019) On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. Journal of Management45(3): 1057–1086.
2.
AkaahIPKorgaonkarPK (1983) An empirical comparison of the predictive validity of self-explicated, Huber-hybrid, traditional conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research20(2): 187–197.
3.
AquinoKReedA (2002) The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83(6): 1423–1440.
4.
BaddacheFNicolaiI (2013) Follow the leader: How corporate social responsibility influences strategy and practice in the business community. Journal of Business Strategy34(6): 26–35.
5.
BansalPRothK (2000) Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal43(4): 717–736.
6.
BateSLStiglerMHThompsonMS, et al. (2012) A qualitative mediation study to evaluate a school-based tobacco prevention program in India (Project MYTRI). Field Methods24(2): 194–221.
7.
BoudreauJW (2010) Retooling HR. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
8.
CampbellJL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review32(3): 946–967.
9.
CuypersIKohPSWangH (2016) Sincerity in corporate philanthropy, stakeholder perceptions and firm value. Organization Science27(1): 173–188.
10.
DawkinsCEJamaliDKaramC, et al. (2016) Corporate social responsibility and job choice intentions: A cross-cultural analysis. Business & Society55(6): 854–888.
11.
DevinneyTM (2009) Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Perspectives23(2): 44–56.
12.
Di GiuliAKostovetskyL (2014) Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics111(1): 158–180.
13.
DoniaMBRonenSSirslyCAT, et al. (2019) CSR by any other name? The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attributions on employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics157(2): 503–523.
14.
DoniaMBSirslyCATRonenS (2017) Employee attributions of corporate social responsibility as substantive or symbolic: Validation of a measure. Applied Psychology66(1): 103–142.
15.
DouglasEJShepherdDA (2002) Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice26(3): 81–90.
16.
DunfeeTW (2008) Stakeholder theory: Managing corporate social responsibility in a multiple actor context. In: CraneAMcWilliamsAMattenD, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press, 346–362.
17.
EdwardsMRKudretS (2017) Multi-foci CSR perceptions, procedural justice and in-role employee performance: The mediating role of commitment and pride. Human Resource Management Journal27(1): 169–188.
18.
EffronDAO’ConnorKLeroyH, et al. (2018) From inconsistency to hypocrisy: When does “saying one thing but doing another” invite condemnation?Research in Organizational Behavior38: 61–75.
19.
El AkremiAGondJPSwaenV, et al. (2018) How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility scale. Journal of Management44(2): 619–657.
20.
ElsbachKDBreitsohlH (2016) A dual-mode framework of organizational categorization and momentary perception. Human Relations69(10): 2011–2039.
21.
ErdoganBBauerTNTaylorS (2015) Management commitment to the ecological environment and employees: Implications for employee attitudes and citizenship behaviors. Human Relations68(11): 1669–1691.
22.
GilbertDT (1998) Ordinary personology. In: GilbertDTFiskeSTLindzeyG (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill, 89–150.
23.
GlavasA (2016) Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: Enabling employees to employ more of their whole selves at work. Frontiers in Psychology7: 1–20.
24.
GondJPMoserC (2019) The reconciliation of fraternal twins: Integrating the psychological and sociological approaches to “micro” corporate social responsibility. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 21 October 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0018726719864407.
25.
GondJPEl AkremiASwaenV, et al. (2017) The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior38(2): 225–246.
26.
GoodmanJKPaolacciG (2017) Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research44(1): 196–210.
27.
GreenPEKriegerAM (1988) Choice rules and sensitivity analysis in conjoint simulators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16(1): 114–127.
28.
GullySMPhillipsJMCastellanoWG, et al. (2013) A mediated moderation model of recruiting socially and environmentally responsible job applicants. Personnel Psychology66(4): 935–973.
29.
HarveyPMadisonKMartinkoM, et al. (2014) Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: The road traveled and the path ahead. The Academy of Management Perspectives28(2): 128–146.
30.
HewettRShantzAMundyJ (2019) Information, beliefs, and motivation: The antecedents to human resource attributions. Journal of Organizational Behavior40(5): 570–586.
31.
HewettRShantzAMundyJ, et al. (2018) Attribution theories in human resource management research: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management29(1): 87–126.
32.
HewstoneMJasparsJ (1987) Covariation and causal attribution: A logical model of the intuitive analysis of variance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology53(4): 663–672.
33.
HighhouseSThornburyEELittleIS (2007) Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes103(1): 134–146.
34.
HiltonDJ (2013) From social perception to knowledge-based attributions. In: KruglanskiAWHigginsET (eds) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford Press, 232–253.
35.
HiltonDJJasparsJM (1987) The explanation of occurrences and non-occurrences: A test of the inductive logic model of causal attribution. British Journal of Social Psychology26(3): 189–201.
36.
HoffmannJ (2018) Talking into (non) existence: Denying or constituting paradoxes of corporate social responsibility. Human Relations71(5): 668–691.
37.
JaccardJJacobyJ (2010) Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills. New York: The Guilford Press.
38.
JonesDARuppDE (2018) Social responsibility in and of organizations: The psychology of corporate social responsibility among organizational members. In: OnesDSAndersonNViswesvaranC, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 333–350.
39.
JonesDAWillnessCRHellerKW (2016) Illuminating the signals job seekers receive from an employer’s community involvement and environmental sustainability practices: Insights into why most job seekers are attracted, others are indifferent, and a few are repelled. Frontiers in Psychology7(March): 1–16.
40.
JonesDAWillnessCRMadeyS (2014) Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal57(2): 383–404.
41.
KangCGermannFGrewalR (2016) Washing away your sins? Corporate social responsibility, corporate social irresponsibility, and firm performance. Journal of Marketing80(2): 59–79.
42.
KelleyHH (1967) Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation15: 192–238.
43.
KelleyHH (1971) Moral evaluation. American Psychologist26(3): 293–300.
44.
KelleyHHMichelaJ L (1980) Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology31(1): 457–501.
45.
KimBJRousseauDM (2019) Internalizing capitalist norms: A grounded theory study of how North Korean escapees adapt to work. Academy of Management Discoveries5(2): 171–200.
46.
KimmelHD (1957) Three criteria for the use of one-tailed tests. Psychological Bulletin54(4): 351–353.
47.
KrippendorffK (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
48.
LilienGLRangaswamyADe BruynA (2013) Principles of Marketing Engineering. State College, PA: DecisionPro.
49.
LohrkeFTHollowayBBWoolleyTW (2010) Conjoint analysis in entrepreneurship research: A review and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods13(1): 16–30.
50.
Lopez-KidwellVGrosserTJDineenBR, et al. (2013) What matters when: A multistage model and empirical examination of job search effort. Academy of Management Journal56(6): 1655–1678.
51.
LyonTPDelmasMAMaxwellJW, et al. (2018) CSR needs CPR: Corporate sustainability and politics. California Management Review60(4): 5–24.
52.
McArthurLA (1972) The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology22(2): 171–193.
53.
McShaneLCunninghamP (2012) To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics108(1): 81–100.
54.
MartinkoMJMackeyJD (2019) Attribution theory: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior40(5): 523–527.
55.
MeyerADTsuiASHiningsCR (1993) Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal36(6): 1175–1195.
56.
NishiiLHLepakDPSchneiderB (2008) Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology61(3): 503–545.
57.
OlsonEL (2013) It’s not easy being green: The effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product preference and choice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science41(2): 171–184.
58.
OrvisBRCunninghamJDKelleyHH (1975) A closer examination of causal inference: The roles of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology32(4): 605–616.
59.
OstromAIacobucciD (1995) Consumer trade-offs and the evaluation of services. Journal of Marketing59(1): 17–28.
60.
Puncheva-MichelottiPHudsonSJinG (2018) Employer branding and CSR communication in online recruitment advertising. Business Horizons61(4): 643–651.
61.
ReederGDVonkRRonkMJ, et al. (2004) Dispositional attribution: Multiple inferences about motive-related traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology86(4): 530–544.
62.
RodellJBLynchJW (2016) Perceptions of employee volunteering: Is it “credited” or “stigmatized” by colleagues?Academy of Management Journal59(2): 611–635.
63.
RuppDEShaoRSkarlickiDP, et al. (2018) Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR-specific relative autonomy and individualism. Journal of Organizational Behavior39(5): 559–579.
64.
RuppDEShaoRThorntonMA, et al. (2013) Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology66(4): 895–933.
65.
SenSBhattacharyaCB (2001) Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research38(2): 225–243.
66.
SenSDuSBhattacharyaCB (2016) Corporate social responsibility: A consumer psychology perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology10: 70–75.
67.
ShepherdDAPatzeltHBaronRA (2013) “I care about nature, but. . .”: Disengaging values in assessing opportunities that cause harm. Academy of Management Journal56(5): 1251–1273.
68.
TurbanDBGreeningDW (1996) Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal40(3): 658–672.
69.
VlachosPPanagopoulosNBachrachDG, et al. (2017) The effects of managerial and employee attributions for corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior38(7): 1111–1129.
70.
VlachosPAPanagopoulosNGRappAA (2013) Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. Journal of Business Ethics118(3): 577–588.
71.
VlachosPATheotokisAPanagopoulosNG (2010) Sales force reactions to corporate social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust. Industrial Marketing Management39(7): 1207–1218.
72.
WaldmanDASiegelDSJavidanM (2006) Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies43(8): 1703–1725.
73.
WangHGibsonCZanderU (2020) Editors’ comments: Is research on corporate social responsibility undertheorized?Academy of Management Review45(1): 1–6.
74.
WilliamsTAShepherdDA (2017) Mixed method social network analysis: Combining inductive concept development, content analysis, and secondary data for quantitative analysis. Organizational Research Methods20(2): 268–298.
75.
WillnessCR (2019) When CSR backfires. In: McWilliamsARuppDESiegelDS, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological and Organizational Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 207–240.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
