How to Engage Employees in Corporate Social Responsibility? Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility Communication Effects Through the Reasoned Action Approach

Abstract

Increasingly, employees are recognized as important enactors and contributors to corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, making their engagement a critical consideration of internal stakeholder management. While the positive outcomes of employees’ CSR engagement have been extensively investigated, the present study focuses on an essential yet understudied question: How do employees engage in organizational CSR activities through communication efforts? We proposed and tested an employee-centered CSR engagement model based on the reasoned action approach. Findings from a survey with 406 employees indicated that CSR communication consisting of both instrumental and co-creational aspects could effectively foster employees’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement in CSR. Positive attitudes and perceived supportive workplace norms regarding CSR participation are key mediators. This study answers the call for more research on the individual-level drivers of CSR engagement from an employee perspective and offers practical implications for internal CSR communication design.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility communication employee corporate social responsibility engagement

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a broad term that encompasses a variety of voluntary, charitable, or socially and environmentally beneficial actions undertaken by businesses to meet the needs of diverse stakeholders (Carroll, 1999). Compared to the extensive research on external stakeholders (e.g., consumer), CSR from an internal perspective is still a relatively understudied area (Costas & Kärreman, 2013; Duthler & Dhanesh, 2018). This is problematic because employees have strong demands for socially responsible employers. According to a recent research report, 93% of employees believe that employers must make social impacts in addition to making profits, and 69% of employees would not work for a company that lacked social responsibilities (Porter, 2020). The value creation of organizational CSR depends on employees’ engagement as employees are important internal customers, primary enactors, and ambassadors of organizations’ CSR endeavors (Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Rupp et al., 2006; Tao et al., 2018). Rupp and Mallory (2015) pointed out that although CSR is an organizational behavior, its meaning and value cannot be achieved without individuals’ advocacy, compliance, and participation.

A review of the current internal CSR research indicates two important gaps that call scholarly attention. First, the value of CSR engagement has been predominantly studied from a functionalist view, focusing on mobilizing employees to engage in CSR activities, such as improved employer-employee relationship quality (Dhanesh, 2014; Lee et al., 2019), employer-employee identification (Brammer et al., 2015), and employee organizational citizenship (Newman et al., 2015) and advocacy behaviors (Schaefer et al., 2019). Yet, the internal dynamics and tensions arising from CSR initiatives are significantly missed from an employee’s perspective. In fact, despite the well-acknowledged importance of CSR, employees’ voluntary participation in organizational CSR initiatives still has room for improvement (Haski-Leventhal, 2013; Roza, 2016). As Koch et al. (2019) suggested, employees’ positive attitudes toward CSR do not necessarily translate to their actual CSR actions. Instead of highlighting the merits of CSR engagement from an organizational perspective, more research is needed on exploring individual-level drivers of CSR engagement (Jiang & Luo, 2020) and to disentangle the psychological process that creates employees’ experience with and meaning-making of CSR (Bekmeier-Feuerhahn et al., 2017; Bhattacharya et al., 2008; Haski-Leventhal, 2013; Rodrigo et al., 2019).

Second, the role and impact of communication have been undervalued in the current internal CSR research. Employees are more likely to receive and process internal communication messages (Maignan & Ferrell, 2000) but are often poorly informed and less involved in their companies’ CSR efforts (Crane & Glozer, 2016). While many studies examined employees’ CSR perceptions as the antecedents of their engagement behaviors (Lee et al., 2013; Maignan & Ferrell, 2000), such perceptions are assumed without effective CSR communication. How to connect a company’s involvement in diverse CSR activities to its internal stakeholders becomes an issue of communication. Unfortunately, an employee’s perspective on CSR communication is understudied (Jiang & Luo, 2020).

In this study, employee CSR engagement is a multidimensional construct indicating the extent to which an employee is cognitively focused on, emotionally linked to, and physically devoted to the CSR activities organized by their employer. The goal of this study is two-fold. First, we want to demonstrate how strategic communication can foster employee CSR engagement. Drawing on CSR communication literature (Kim & Ferguson, 2018; Kim, 2019; Jiang & Luo, 2020), we argue that internal CSR communication is a holistic construct consisting of instrumental (Kim, 2019) and co-creational aspects (Jiang & Luo, 2020) that can effectively foster employee CSR engagement. Second, we want to articulate the reasons for employee CSR engagement from a psychological perspective. Recent years have seen a burgeoning infusion of psychology theories into CSR research (Ji et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2017; Rupp et al., 2018). In this study, we rely on the reasoned action approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) as a theoretical framework to guide our search for beliefs associated with employees’ engagement in their employer’s CSR initiatives. To further explicate the underlying psychological mechanism, we tested how different psychological determinants are influenced by CSR communication, and ultimately drive employee CSR engagement.

This study contributes to CSR research in three ways. First, this study enriches internal CSR communication by proposing and testing an employee-centered model that justifies the importance of strategic internal communication in fostering CSR engagement. Second, this study explores beliefs associated with employees’ decisions to engage in CSR. Third, by testing the mediating effects of attitude, PN, and PBC related to employee CSR engagement, this research illustrates the impacts and limitations of micro-CSR communication. In addition, practitioners can use the proposed model to develop employee-centered CSR messages with a comprehension of the process of communication effects.

Literature Review

Corporate Social Responsibility

The definition of CSR is contested and has been evolving throughout history along with the changes in the social and economic environment. Although a universal definition is still absent, a common agreement is that CSR is a stakeholder responsiveness strategy (Kim & Ferguson, 2018). One of the most cited definitions of CSR was proposed by Carroll (1991, 1999), suggesting that CSR encompasses economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that the stakeholders have for businesses. These responsibilities are structured in a pyramid, in which economic responsibilities are placed at the bottom as the minimum requirement of CSR, and discretionary responsibilities are placed at the top as the highest expectations for CSR. The industry also embraces the stakeholder view. The Commission of the European Communities (CEC) defined CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (2001, p. 6).

Most research on the impacts of CSR has focused on external stakeholders such as customers (Du et al., 2010). In comparison, internal stakeholders are underrepresented in the CSR literature (Crane & Glozer, 2016; Kim, et al., 2010; Rupp et al., 2013). While employees are critical internal CSR stakeholders, Rupp et al.(2006) discovered that employees are less likely to participate in CSR planning and implementation. Employees were more likely than managers to be exposed to CSR information through both official and informal channels, which may significantly impact their knowledge of the employer’s values and culture (Story & Neves, 2015). Recently, business and management literature has examined the impact of CSR on employees, and this line of study focuses primarily on the instrumental aspects of CSR (Crane & Glozer, 2016), considering CSR as a firm-controlled tool that benefits organizations through mobilizing employee CSR engagement.

Alternatively, a critical perspective of CSR attempts to open the black box of the internal organizational process of CSR by highlighting the power dynamics and tensions around CSR from an employee perspective. Scholars believe that CSR works as an aspirational control that mobilizes employees to voluntarily participate in CSR initiatives via tying their aspirations of ethical responsibilities to their corporations (Costas & Kärreman, 2013). Employees who seek social identity, organizational identity, and have a strong sense of social responsibility, are more likely to commit to and engage in CSR activities (Rodrigo et al., 2019; Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). However, employees’ participation in organizational CSR should not be taken as their agreement with the employer’s mechanism by which CSR is enforced (Costas & Kärreman, 2013). Cynicism exists regarding the instrumental nature of CSR (Costas & Kärreman, 2013; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). The meaning and value of CSR remain on the surface as many critiques, and true concerns employees have about organizational CSR are marginalized from the corporate-controlled CSR agenda. To truly engage employees in organizational CSR initiatives, it is critical to recognize the tension around CSR from the employee perspective.

Defining Employee CSR Engagement

Although engagement has received interdisciplinary interests, a consensus on its definition has not yet been achieved (Morehouse & Saffer, 2018). From a social-psychological perspective, employee engagement is a multifaceted and multidimensional construct (Duthler & Dhanesh, 2018; Jiang & Shen, 2020) that encompasses employees’ cognitive, emotional, and physical expressions of themselves when they perform an organizational role (Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006). Saks (2006) further specified the subject of employee engagement, distinguishing employees’ job engagement from organizational engagement. While job engagement is primarily associated with specific duties and workload, organizational engagement can include a broader scope of activities in which the organization’s members can be involved (Saks, 2006; Welch, 2011).

Based on our review of management (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006; Welch, 2011) and public relations literature (Jiang & Shen, 2020; Jiang & Luo, 2020), this study defines employee CSR engagement as the extent to which an employee is cognitively focused on, emotionally linked to, and physically devoted to the CSR activities organized by their employer. Employees with high cognitive CSR engagement will show attention and absorption by being cognitively available to process CSR information and engross their role in CSR activities. When involved in the employer’s CSR initiatives, an emotionally engaged employee will experience positive affection and empowerment (Kang et al., 2010). Behavioral CSR engagement refers to an employee’s actual participative behaviors, such as donating, volunteering, and community service, in which time and skills are invested into the CSR activities (Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014; Kim et al., 2010).

Understanding Employee CSR Engagement Through Reasoned Action Approach

Fishbein (2008) and Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) proposed the reasoned action approach, which theorizes the key variables that “account for a substantial proportion of the variance in any given behavior” (Fishbein, 2008, p. 834). The reasoned action approach considers attitude, perceived norms (PN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC) as major determinants of a person’s intention to perform a behavior of interest. Attitude is a “latent disposition or tendency to respond with some degree of favorableness or unfavorableness to a psychological object” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010, p. 86). Perceived norm (PN) refers to the perceived normative social pressure surrounding performing (or not performing) a given behavior. Perceived behavioral control (PBC) is defined as “the extent to which people believe that they are capable of performing a given behavior, that they have control over its performance” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010, p. 154–155). It usually considers the availability of resources (e.g., information, opportunities, time) as facilitators or obstacles to a specific action. In the context of CSR, TRA and TPB have been applied to understand CSR engagement from different stakeholders’ perspectives, such as consumers (Dodd & Supa, 2011) and corporate managers (Mi et al., 2018). However, scant research is available concerning an employee’s perspective.

Drawing on the reasoned action approach, this study argues that attitude, PN, and PBC can help explain employees’ engagement with CSR. Previous studies found that CSR activities can deliver functional, emotional, and moral positivity to employees (Koch et al., 2019). Recognizing these benefits, employees will form positive attitudes toward CSR activities and participate in these activities more (Haski-Leventhal, 2013). Important social referents within the work environment, such as leaders and coworkers, strongly influence employees’ behaviors (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014). As for potential barriers, previous research found that CSR engagement intention might be influenced by employees’ financial capability (Haski-Leventhal, 2013). Yet, a comprehensive understanding of employees’ various beliefs associated with their attitude, PN, and PBC in relation to CSR engagement is still lacking. Thus, we ask:

RQ1

What beliefs do employees have to form their attitude, PN, and PBC about engaging in CSR activities organized by their employers?

CSR Communication

Drawing on internal communication (Lee & Yue, 2020; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2012) and CSR literature (Kim, 2019; Morsing & Schultz, 2006), we define internal CSR communication as any communication efforts initiated by an employer to its employees regarding the employer’s various internal and external CSR efforts. Despite the extensive research on CSR, research on communication’s role and impact is “rather scarce and in the periphery” (Golob et al., 2013, p. 177). CSR communication scholarship is heterogeneous and fragmented (Golob et al., 2013). Recent CSR communication research has revealed two salient approaches: instrumental and constitutive. Stemmed from marketing and management literature, the instrumental approach is organization centered. It regards CSR as a manageable resource helping organizations reach a consensus with key stakeholders and achieve the intended organizational goals (Du et., 2010; Golob et al., 2013). In contrast, the constitutive approach is grounded in constructivism and organizational studies (Golob et al., 2013; Schultz et al., 2013). The constitutive approach argues that CSR communication is a participatory process in which companies and publics co-create CSR meanings and plans through dialogue, negotiation, and symbolic interaction (Schultz et al., 2013).

Although the two approaches indicate different epistemological orientations, they are both valued in constructing strategic CSR efforts. An example of the instrumental approach is the typology of CSR communication factors proposed by Kim (2019), which are useful messaging strategies that can improve publics’ CSR knowledge, trust in CSR commitment, and ultimately, corporate reputation. Park and Kang’ work (2020), on the other hand, is more aligned with the constitutive approach of CSR communication, suggesting that organizations should adopt a crowdsourcing approach to improve the CSR decision-making process by inviting publics to express their diverse perspectives to mutually construct CSR efforts. Communication scholars should acknowledge the existence of both approaches, their interdependence, and their values in strategic CSR communication (Elving et al., 2015).

To integrate these two theoretical approaches, this study primarily relies on the CSR communication typology proposed by Kim (2019) and Kim and Ferguson (2018) and embraces Park and Kang’s (2020) dialogic model, suggesting that employee-centered effective CSR communication is a construct made up of six dimensions: informativeness, consistency, transparency, personal relevance, third-party endorsement, and interactivity. We argue that these strategies can foster employees’ positive attitudes toward CSR participation, create a supportive internal norm of CSR, and enhance employees’ efficacy of acting on prosocial activities.

To elaborate, informativeness refers to detailed information about an employer’s CSR activities, such as the CSR motives, outcomes, and impacts conveyed to employees (Kim, 2019). The prerequisite of CSR communication effects is stakeholders’ awareness (Pomering & Dolnicar, 2009). Although the public demand for CSR information remains high, low awareness of companies’ CSR efforts has been recognized as a critical barrier to maximizing its positive outcomes (Du et al., 2010). By actively disseminating detailed CSR information, organizations can keep employees up to date with available participation opportunities, educate and justify the firm’s motives, and make employees aware of the available resources for their CSR participation, leading to more CSR engagement.

Consistency refers to “how steadily the company communicates its CSR goals (Kim & Ferguson, 2018, p. 554). Single-message exposure has limited power to induce attitudinal and behavioral changes (Ajzen, 2012). Consistent CSR communication can show an employer’s commitment to CSR, reduce CSR skepticism, and increase organizational support (Kim & Ferguson, 2014). During a company’s crisis, a long and consistent CSR record is beneficial in countering negative publicity (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009).

Transparency is defined as “openness of disclosure including both good and bad” (Kim & Ferguson, 2018), a key indicator of CSR communication quality and ethics. Employees may face information asymmetry (Schaefer et al., 2019) when making decisions about CSR engagement. Thus, they demand transparent CSR information from the employer to accurately interpret and evaluate the employer’s CSR performance (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014). Because CSR creates a social contract between employees and the employer (Slack et al., 2015), openness and honesty about CSR performance can illuminate organizational CSR’s contextual enablers and impediments, influencing employees’ engagement decisions.

Personal relevance is defined as the relatedness between the employer’s CSR activities and employees’ personal experiences and interests. The Elaboration Likelihood Model posits that relevant information can inspire substantial message elaboration, resulting in attitude change and persuasiveness (Cacioppo & Petty, 1989). CSR issue support reflects consumers’ personal needs and values (Du et al., 2010). Thus, CSR with a high personal fit (Schmeltz, 2017) is more likely to evoke employees’ acceptance and engagement.

Third-party endorsement indicates whether credible third parties, such as nonprofits, authorities, or experts endorse the employer’s CSR initiatives. Credible CSR partners can create halo effects for companies, reducing public skepticism and inducing positive attitudes and prosocial behaviors (e.g., Du et al., 2010). From an employee’s perspective, appropriate nonprofit partners also make the company’s CSR commitment more serious (Boccalandro, 2009), boosting CSR engagement.

Interactivity is defined as a dynamic process in which employees are involved in ongoing, co-creative CSR planning and implementation (Jiang & Luo, 2020). Bekmeier-Feuerhahn et al. (2017) argue that internal CSR is beyond functional; it is “self-referential, involving, and participative” in nature (p. 92). Through a dialogical and interactive approach, companies learn about employees’ interests, expectations, and feedback, which help foster the initiation, implementation, and maturation of organizational CSR efforts (Bolton et al., 2011). Through this process, employees can make greater sense of the CSR initiatives, recognize their capability in co-creating CSR values, and become more dedicated participants in their organizations’ CSR efforts.

Taken together, the literature review suggests a theoretical rationale for the current study to examine the role of CSR communication as a multidimensional construct in influencing employees’ CSR-related psychological determinants and driving CSR engagement (see Figure 1). The following hypotheses are proposed:

Figure 1.

Conceptual model illustrating the relationships among CSR communication, attitude, PN, PBC, and CSR engagement.

H1 a-c

CSR communication (i.e., informativeness, consistency, transparency, personal relevance, third-party endorsement, and interactivity) is positively associated with employees' CSR-related a) attitude, b) PN, and c) PBC.

CSR communication is positively associated with employee CSR engagement.

H3 a-c

Employees’ a) attitude, b) PN, and c) PBC toward CSR participation are positively associated with employee CSR engagement.

The Mediating Role of Attitude, PN, PBC

Drawing on the reasoned action approach, this study proposes the mediating roles of employees’ psychological determinants of CSR participation (i.e., attitude, PN, and PBC), which can explain the underlying psychological mechanism of CSR communication effects. Effective CSR communication helps employees rationalize CSR participation by stressing the personal and moral benefits, reinforcing a supportive social environment, and eliminating perceived barriers. Informative, consistent, transparent, personally relevant, endorsed, and interactive communication can jointly trigger employees’ intrinsic motivations to participate in CSR, and ultimately drive cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement in prosocial activities.

H4 a-c

The relationship between CSR communication and employees’ CSR engagement will be mediated by employees’ a) attitude, b) PN, and c) PBC related to CSR participation.

Method

This study employed a two-step approach to investigating the research inquiries, including 1) a belief elicitation study revealing the key beliefs associated with the psychological determinants of employees’ CSR participation, and 2) a survey testing the effects of CSR communication strategies as proposed in the hypotheses. This research design was created for two purposes. First, few studies have examined the motivations behind employees’ CSR engagement, leaving the understanding and measures of the psychological determinants of their CSR engagement largely unexplored. A belief elicitation can collect a set of salient modal beliefs by identifying the beliefs most frequently produced by a target population (Ajzen, 2012). In this study, we particularly relied on the normative beliefs collected in the belief elicitation study to develop the measures of PN, which captures the important social referent groups who are most relevant to employees’ motivations to engage in CSR. Second, the belief elicitation study allows participants to explain their actions in a free-response format, offering valuable qualitative insights to enhance the interpretation of the survey results. In this study, the behavioral beliefs and control beliefs identified in the first study provide detailed and nuanced understandings of attitude and PBC related to CSR participation and their impacts on employee CSR engagement, which helps to explain the CSR communication effects and develop employee-centered CSR communication programs.

Belief Elicitation Study

Participants

A convenience sample of MBA students (N = 78) at a public university in the Southwest United States completed the online survey on Qualtrics in exchange for extra credit in March 2020. Participants included 48 women and 30 men, and the average age was 32.95 (SD = 8.01). Most participants were White (61.5%), and 58.97% had an annual income above $70,000. As for their employment status, 69 (88.5%) worked full-time, and 9 (11.5%) worked part-time.

Instruments and Data Analysis

We first provided a short statement describing the definition of CSR (CEC, 2001) and a list of typical CSR activities (e.g., environmental protection, volunteering in communities, providing training and education opportunities to employees, etc.). Then, the participants were asked to indicate their awareness of the CSR activities initiated by their employers (Lee et al., 2019), report how often they participate in their employers’ CSR activities (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very often), and provide examples of their previous participation in those and similar activities.

Then, participants responded to open-ended questions and elicited their beliefs about engaging in the CSR activities initiated by their employers in the next 12 months. The belief elicitation procedure was developed following established guidelines (Yzer et al., 2015; Yzer & Gilasevitch, 2019). Specifically, for behavioral beliefs, participants were asked to report their perceived advantages/disadvantages of participating in their employers' CSR activities. For normative beliefs, we asked participants to identify important social referent groups that can influence their decisions on CSR participation. For control beliefs, we asked participants to list their perceived enablers/barriers related to participating in their employers' CSR activities. The open-ended responses to the belief elicitation questions were content analyzed following the established coding procedures (e.g., Yzer & Gilasevitch, 2019). We identified 68 distinct beliefs that are salient in the behavioral (n = 18), normative (n = 24), and control belief (n = 26) categories.

Key Findings of Belief Elicitation Study

The participants reported a relatively high awareness of their employers’ CSR activities (M = 5.18, SD = 1.55). The participants engaged in their employers’ CSR activities on a moderately frequent basis (M = 3.86, SD = 2.00). Typical examples of the CSR activities they engaged in included providing services in the communities, churches, and local nonprofits; joining employer-organized financial assistance programs to help people obtain healthcare, attending training, supporting science fairs, donations to nonprofits (e.g., Red Cross), participating in employee wellness groups, and fundraising for food banks.

The most common advantages of participating in CSR activities were improving communities (n = 20; 21%), achieving self-satisfaction (n = 16; 17%), and building networks with coworkers and higher-level leaders (n = 16; 17%). The most common disadvantage as perceived by employees regarding CSR participation was taking away from personal time with families and friends or other personal obligations (n = 35; 58%).

As for the normative beliefs, approval for CSR participation was most expected from managers and supervisors (n = 39; 32%), the higher leadership (n = 28; 23%), and colleagues (n = 11; 9%). Disapproval was also expected from colleagues (n = 7; 28%), managers/supervisors (n = 7; 28%), and family (n = 6; 24%).

In terms of control beliefs, the most common facilitating factor was paid time to participate (n = 21; 22%), followed by better CSR communication (n = 16; 16%), support and encouragement from the employer (e.g., CEO) (n = 15; 15%), and less time commitment (n = 13; 13%). The most common barriers were large time commitments (n = 37; 43%), heavy workload (n = 17; 20%), and conflicting work schedules (n = 8; 9%) The salient beliefs are reported in Appendix A in Supplementary Files.

Discussion of Belief Elicitation Study

Results from the belief elicitation study indicated that the benefits of participating in CSR can be intrinsic and extrinsic. Community improvement was a positive outcome of CSR participation commonly expressed by employees, suggesting that employees recognize the employer’s positive impact on external stakeholders as a salient positive motivator of their own CSR participation. We also found that many behavioral beliefs were self-interested, such as recognition by the leadership team and potential job promotions. Although numerous studies have documented the positive outcomes of employee CSR engagement, most benefits were from an organizational perspective (e.g., job performance). Our findings suggest that employee-related benefits, such as self-enhancement and career development, should be further researched as potential drivers of employee CSR engagement. Despite the benefits related to CSR (Rupp, et al., 2013), our findings indicate that when it comes to actual CSR participation, a strong disadvantage, as expected by employees, was reducing work productivity, raising conflicts between individuals’ job performance and CSR performance.

As to the normative beliefs, managers and coworkers were listed in both the possible perceived supporters and opponents. Like organizations signaling CSR engagement to consumers, employees may signal their CSR participation, and their target audience is managers or coworkers. Usually, CSR participation is considered a positive, prosocial behavior that people would commonly support. However, many participants expressed concerns that their managers and families will discourage them from engaging in CSR. This finding reinforces that CSR participation could cause tensions between the employees and managers, and between the employees and their families.

Findings of control belief revealed the vulnerability of employees. If taking the time to participate in organizational CSR activities means that employees need to either affect their work schedule or compromise their personal time, they are likely to be placed in a disadvantageous position and forced to comply with an organization-centered CSR agenda. In addition, communication was indicated as a factor that can enable employees’ CSR participation, suggesting the importance of improving strategic CSR communication to internal stakeholders.

Main Survey

Participants

To test the proposed hypotheses, an online survey was conducted in November 2020 via Qualtrics. Participants (N = 548) who were full-time and part-time employed were randomly recruited on MTurk and paid $1.60 per person as an incentive. After data cleaning, 406 responses were included in the analysis. Among them, 55.4% were males (n = 225), and 43.8% were females (n = 178). The average age was 38.67 years (SD = 11.05). Regarding the level of position, non-management positions accounted for 41.6%. More than half of the participants (n = 210, 51.8%) had over 5 years of work experience with their current employer. The majority (n = 138, 34.0%) of participants claimed that their employer had a moderate amount of CSR activities.

Measures

Before measuring key variables, we provided a short statement describing what CSR means in our study, stating that CSR generally refers to companies integrating social and environmental concerns into their business operations and in their interactions with stakeholders voluntarily (CEC, 2001). We also provided a list of CSR examples to show participants several common organizational CSR activities as in Study 1. Then, participants were asked to indicate their awareness of their employers’ involvement in CSR activities and write some examples of their organizations’ CSR initiatives.

Informed by the identified beliefs and previous research, we measured attitude (α = 0.87) using four items on a seven-point bipolar scale (e.g., extremely harmful (1), extremely beneficial (7)). PN was measured by asking participants to indicate how much they perceived coworkers, managers, and leadership would support, want, or approve their CSR participation (α = 0.93). PBC was measured by asking the extent to which participants believed their CSR participation was within their control and under their free will (Taylor & Todd, 1995) (α = 0.86).

To measure CSR communication, we adapted 16 items from Kim and Ferguson’s (2018) scales, including five dimensions: informativeness (α = 0.92), transparency (α = 0.93), consistency (α = 0.94), relevance (α = 0.94), and third-party endorsement (α = 0.91). In addition, we also adapted four items from Yang et al. (2015) (α = 0.93) to measure the dialogue dimension of CSR communication. All items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).

CSR engagement was measured using a modified nine-item scale from Rich et al. (2010) and Jiang and Shen (2020), and it was treated as a multidimensional construct including cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. Cognitive engagement measured participants’ attention and cognitive involvement in CSR activities (α = 0.93). Emotional engagement measured participants’ positive emotional state (e.g., proud, enthusiastic, excited) when they are involved in CSR activities (α = 0.93). Behavioral engagement measured participants’ physical participation in CSR activities (α = 0.9).

Data Analysis and Results

Discriminant and Convergent Validity

The “semTools” R package was used to test the discriminant and convergent validity of variables. As displayed in Table 1, the AVE ranged from 0.69 to 0.85, larger than the threshold of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Therefore, a large proportion of variance in first-order variables was explained by corresponding survey items. The convergent validity was satisfied.

Table 1.

The correlation matrix of endogenous and exogenous variables and the square root of AVE on the diagonal

Variables	AVE	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Informativeness	0.74	5.12	1.47	0.86
2. Transparency	0.82	3.58	1.80	0.65	0.90
3. Consistency	0.84	5.03	1.65	0.85	0.65	0.92
4. Personal relevance	0.85	4.64	1.72	0.79	0.60	0.79	0.92
5. Third-party endorsement	0.78	4.63	1.69	0.78	0.60	0.78	0.73	0.88
6. Interactivity	0.78	4.67	1.61	0.78	0.60	0.78	0.73	0.72	0.89
7. Attitude	0.69	5.62	1.14	0.51	0.39	0.51	0.47	0.47	0.47	0.83
8. Perceived Norm	0.81	5.46	1.26	0.65	0.50	0.65	0.61	0.60	0.60	0.69	0.90
9. Perceived Control	0.76	5.44	1.37	0.36	0.27	0.36	0.34	0.33	0.33	0.43	0.41	0.87
10. Behavioral engagement	0.75	4.77	1.71	0.59	0.45	0.59	0.55	0.54	0.54	0.67	0.65	0.39	0.87
11. Emotional engagement	0.82	5.24	1.41	0.62	0.48	0.62	0.58	0.57	0.57	0.70	0.68	0.41	0.88	0.90
12. Cognitive engagement	0.82	5.26	1.40	0.58	0.44	0.58	0.54	0.53	0.54	0.66	0.64	0.39	0.82	0.86	0.90

Note. AVE = average extracted

The correlations among variables and the square root in our model indicated that the correlations among first-order variables were less than the corresponding square roots of AVEs, suggesting the satisfied discriminant validity.

Tests on Socio-Demographic Variables

Prior to testing the hypotheses, we conducted a series of linear regression analyses to examine how relevant demographic variables might impact on the measured relationships in the SEM model, following Shen and Jiang (2019)’s guidelines. Results suggested that the level of management positions (β_{non-management} = −.68, p < .05) and organizational size (β_{organizational_size_between_501_1000} = .70, p < .05; β_{organizational_size_1001_more =} .64, p < .01) were significant predictors for CSR communication. Gender was a significant predictor for attitudes (β_female = .29, p < .05) and CSR engagement (β_female = .39, p < .01). CSR engagement was also affected by the level of management positions (β_{non-management} = −.55, p < .05). Based on the results, we controlled for organizational size, the level of management, and gender in the SEM model for hypothesis testing.

Measurement Model

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to examine the relationships between latent, multidimensional constructs proposed in our model. Following the guidelines of two-step structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis (Rosseel, 2012), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the measurement model using the lavaan package in R. The measurement model test suggested a satisfactory model fit: χ2 = 1401.01 ***, df = 642, χ2/df = 2.18, comparative fit index (CFI) = .95 and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .95. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05 (90% C.I. = [.05, −.06]); SRMR = .05. The scales and factor loadings are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Results of the Measurement Model (n = 406).

Latent Construct	Composite	Indicator	1^st order Standardized loadings	2^nd order Standardized loadings
CSR communication	Informativeness	I believe my employer has been actively providing information about…		0.92
		Specific achievement or outcomes from its previous CSR activities	0.84
		Its motives or intentions for doing CSR activities	0.87
		What the company wants to achieve from its CSR activities	0.90
		Who is benefiting from the company’s CSR activities	0.81
	Transparency	I believe my employer has…		0.70
		Provided the information about its CSR failures, not just successes	0.92
		Informed me if its CSR initiative fails	0.90
		Informed me of both good and bad information about its CSR activities	0.89
	Consistency	I believe…		0.92
		My employer communicates about its CSR activities consistently	0.92
		My employer reminds me of the available opportunities to participate in its CSR activities	0.89
		My employer has a history of communicating CSR with employees like me	0.94
	Personal relevance	My employer has actively informed me…		0.85
		How its CSR activities are relevant to me	0.95
		How its CSR activities will affect me	0.87
		How its CSR activities are important to me	0.95
	Third-party endorsement	I believe my employer has provided me the...		0.85
		Information about whether the company’s CSR activities are endorsed by any other organization(s) or public figure(s)	0.89
		Information about whether has received CSR-related certifications or recognitions	0.87
		Information about whether has received CSR-related certifications or recognitions	0.89
	Interactivity	My employer solicits employees' opinions about a particular CSR agenda	0.80	0.86
		My employer is empathetic in understanding employees’ feelings about CSR activities	0.90
		My employer pays attention to what employees say about CSR programs	0.92
		My employer recognizes the unique value of employees’ opinions about CSR activities	0.93
Attitude		My participation in at least one CSR activity organized by my employer in the next 12 months would be…
		Extremely foolish – Extremely wise	0.84
		Extremely negative – Extremely positive	0.85
		Extremely harmful – Extremely beneficial	0.81
		Extremely unpleasant – Extremely pleasant	0.82
PN		How do you think people at your workplace (e.g., coworkers, managers, the leadership) would feel about you participate in at least one of your company’s CSR activities in the next 12 months?
		They support my participation in my company’s CSR activities	0.88
		They want me to participate in my company’s CSR activities	0.93
		They think I should participate in my company’s CSR activities	0.89
PBC		Even in the face of potential obstacles
		My participation in CSR activities is entirely within my control	0.94
		My participation in my company’s CSR activities is subject only to my free will	0.81
CSR engagement	Behavioral engagement	I will voluntarily contribute my time to participate in my company’s CSR activities in the next 12 months	0.93	0.91
		I will actively participate in CSR activities at my company in the next 12 months	0.93
		I will participate in every new CSR activity at my company in the next 12 months	0.75
	Emotionalengagement	I will be enthusiastic in my organization’s CSR activities	0.94	0.96
		I will be excited about my organization’s CSR activities	0.90
		I will be proud of my involvement in my company’s CSR activities	0.87
	Cognitive engagement	I will pay a lot of attention to my company’s CSR activities	0.85	0.90
		My mind will be focused when I am involved in my company’s CSR.	0.93
		My mind will be concentrated when I participate in my company’s CSR activities	0.94

Note. χ2 = 1401.01 ***; df = 642; χ2/df = 2.18 < 3; CFI = .95; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .05 (90% C.I.: .05–.06); SRMR = .05.

Structural Model Fitting and Hypotheses Testing

The hypothesized structural model (Table 3) proved to be a good fit for our data: CFI = .95; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .05 (C.I. = [.045, - .051]); SRMR = .06; χ2 = 1894.23 ***; df = 979, χ2/df = 1.93; n = 406. Standardized path coefficients were displayed in Figure 2.

Table 3.

Results of Direct Effects and Indirect Effects.

Hypotheses	Unstandardized estimate	S.E.	Standardized	Z	BC 95% CI
Hypotheses	Unstandardized estimate	S.E.	Standardized	Z	Lower	Upper
H1a: CSR communication - > attitudes	0.66	0.07	0.55	9.77***	0.53	0.79
H1b: CSR communication - > PN	1.01	0.08	0.71	12.38***	0.85	1.16
H1c: CSR communication - > PBC	0.42	0.06	0.39	6.80***	0.30	0.55
H2: CSR communication - > CSR engagement	0.62	0.11	0.34	5.89***	0.42	0.83
H3a: Attitudes - > CSR engagement	0.61	0.09	0.40	6.76***	0.43	0.79
H3b: PN - > CSR engagement	0.23	0.08	0.18	2.86**	0.07	0.38
H3c: PBC - > CSR engagement	0.10	0.07	0.06	1.5	−0.03	0.23

Total effect	1.30	0.11	0.70	11.84***	1.08	1.51
Total indirect	0.67	0.09	0.37	7.56***	0.50	0.85
Direct	0.62	0.11	0.34	5.89***	0.42	0.83
H4a: CSR communication - > attitudes - > CSR engagement	0.40	0.07	0.22	5.90***	0.27	0.54
H4b: CSR communication - > PN- > CSR engagement	0.23	0.08	0.12	2.84**	0.07	0.39
H4c: CSR communication - > PBC - > CSR engagement	0.04	0.03	0.02	1.4	−0.02	0.10

Note. N = 406; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .05 (C.I.: .045–.051); SRMR = .06; χ2 = 1894.23 ***; df = 979, χ2/df = 1.93; 5**p < .01,***p < .001. BC 95% CI: Bias-corrected 95% bootstrapped confidence interval (CI) based on 5000 resamples.

Figure 2.

Estimated standardized effects in the structural modeling equation.

We hypothesized that CSR communication was positively associated with employees’ CSR-related attitudes (H1a), PN (H1b), and PBC (H1c). The results suggested that effective CSR communication was positively associated with employees’ positive attitudes toward CSR engagement (β = .55, p < .001), PN supporting CSR participations (β = .71, p < .001), and PBC in their own participation in CSR activities (β = .39, p < .01). Thus, H1 was supported. In addition, effective CSR communication was also a strong predictor of increased employee CSR engagement (β = .34, p < .001), supporting H2. In addition, employees with more positive attitudes (β = .40, p < .001) and perceived more support from important referents in the workplace (β = .18, p < .01) were more likely to engage in CSR activities. Therefore, H3a and H3b were supported. However, we did not observe a direct effect of PBC on CSR engagement (β = .06, se = .07, p > .05), not supporting H3c.

Indirect (Mediation) Effects

A test of indirect effects was performed using a bootstrapping procedure (N = 5000 samples). Results revealed a significant indirect effect of CSR communication on employees’ CSR engagement via employees’ CSR-related attitudes (β = .22, p < .001, 95% CI = [.27, - .54]) and perceived norms (β = .12, p < .01, 95% CI = [.07, - .39]). Thus, H4a and H4b were supported. In other words, the positive effects of CSR communication on driving employees to engage in organizational CSR activities were mediated by employee’s positive feelings toward and the supportive organizational norm about CSR participation. However, the effect on CSR engagement from CSR communication was not mediated by PBC (β = .02, SE = .03, 95% CI = [-.02, - .01]), not supporting H4c.

Additional Analysis

In addition, to further reveal the effect of each individual CSR communication strategy, we conducted six separate structural equation models to examine how informativeness, transparency, consistency, personal relevance, third-party endorsement, and interactivity was directly and indirectly associated with employee CSR engagement. The analyses suggested that all CSR communication dimensions have direct positive effects on employees’ attitudes, PN, PBC, and CSR engagement (See Appendix B in Supplementary Files). In terms of mediation effects, attitude and PN mediated the effects of all individual CSR communication strategies on CSR engagement. In contrast, PBC did not mediate any of the communication strategy effects. In summary, increases in informativeness, transparency, consistency, personal relevance, third-party endorsement, and interactivity in the employer’s CSR communication would lead to employees’ enhanced attitudes toward and PN of CSR engagement, which, in turn, improve their CSR engagement.

Discussion of Main Survey

The findings justified the positive effects of internal communication on employees’ reasoning for CSR participation and their engagement in organizational CSR programs. Although strategies focusing on delivering informative, transparent, relevant, and consistent CSR information to employees are instrumental and can be one-way, they are useful tools to send clear and formal messages to keep informed about the employer’ CSR efforts (Lemon, 2019). Employees can more effectively process such information through internal channels (Maignan & Ferrell, 2000). In addition to the instrumental approach, we argue that an employee-centric, co-creational approach is also important (Lemon, 2019; Taklac Verčič et al., 2012), evidenced in the positive direct effects of interactive strategy on employees’ CSR engagement. Active listening and interaction offer a genuine venue for both sides to interpret and talk about CSR, make sense of CSR, and shape the meaning and practice of CSR (Schoeneborn et al., 2020).

Attitude toward CSR participation was found as a determining factor for employee CSR engagement, which echoes previous research suggesting that employees calculate the benefits of their CSR participation (Haski-Leventhal, 2013; Koch et al., 2019; Mirvis, 2012). By providing informative, transparent, consistent, relevant, endorsed, and interactive communication, CSR’s benefits, whether they are self-oriented or other-oriented, are clearly presented. Employees recognizing such benefits would form more positive attitudes toward CSR participation and become attentive, empowered, and active when engaging in organizational CSR activities.

As Morsing and Spence (2019) suggested, an important goal of CSR communication is to convey values, norms, and rules to stakeholders. Our findings supported this notion by further arguing that CSR communication contributes to creating the internal context. This context introduces new roles of the employer beyond the workplace, which allows employees to share their social views with the employer and develop stronger identification with the organization (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008). CSR communication can also construct a supportive internal environment for personal connections to be established around CSR topics, which provides a pathway for employees to confirm leadership and peer support of CSR, evokes more CSR-related dialogue exchanges, and ultimately enriches their CSR experiences.

However, the internal CSR norm may put employees in a more vulnerable position. As Costas and Kärreman (2013) warned, CSR can be enforced through soft regulations, such as codes of conduct, standards, and norms. In this way, such norms can become an internal pressure that suppresses employees’ expression of concerns and disagreement with organizational CSR. This concern is also highlighted by our belief elicitation findings that managers, leaders, and coworkers were perceived as the most important endorsers of employees’ CSR participation. To avoid the internal norm becoming an organizational tool for reaching agreement and consensus (Costas & Kärreman, 2013), it is important to engage employees in co-creational communication processes through which the members of an organization construct CSR in a way that is meaningful to them.

The positive association between CSR communication and PBC suggests that CSR communication can help employees to know better about their capability to influence organizational CSR decisions and implementation, their potential to make positive social impacts, and the resources that are available to them. However, our findings also reveal that PBC was insufficient to produce employees’ CSR engagement. There are three possible explanations. First, as Costas and Kärreman (2013) suggested, CSR can be regarded as a type of management control by employees. Considering the imbalanced power between employees and employers, CSR communication might be perceived as manipulative and cannot be trusted by employees (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). Thus, even if the CSR communication has informed employees about the available resources, employees may still be reluctant to comply due to the unwillingness to follow a CSR agenda set by the employer.

Second, other variables out of the employees’ control can influence their CSR engagement, which may require inputs from managerial and policy changes (e.g., PTO). It’s also important to note that although most CSR participation is voluntary, it could be difficult to draw a fine line between work and non-work activities when the employees are the participants. This finding is consistent with the control beliefs as discussed earlier, highlighting the potential conflicts between employees’ self needs and job performance. Last, organizational size was treated as a control variable in our model, but organizations have varied circumstances and resources, which may affect their CSR initiatives and the opportunities for employee involvement (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013).

General Discussion

This research provides an employee’s viewpoint on CSR communication and engagement to help improve organizations’ engagement with employees via CSR activities. The two studies contribute to an employee-centric CSR communication model qualitatively and quantitatively. Specifically, the belief elicitation study identified various beliefs related to attitude, PN, and PBC driving employees’ CSR participation, served as the foundation for developing survey measures (i.e., PN), and provided contextual explanations for the survey results. The main survey focused on a multi-dimensional CSR communication construct and investigated its impacts on employees’ CSR-related psychological reasoning centered on attitude, PN, and PBC, and subsequently on employees’ engagement in organizational CSR activities.

Theoretical Implications

This research makes several theoretical contributions to the CSR communication scholarship. First, while most previous studies focused on proving the values of employee engagement by justifying its positive outcomes (e.g., Chen & Hung-Baesecke, 2014), this study identifies strategic communication as a key antecedent of employee CSR engagement, adding important empirical evidence justifying the value of internal CSR communication. Internal communication is an important venue for bringing employees closer to CSR activities, yet a holistic CSR communication model has not been explicated in previous studies. We argue that strategic internal CSR communication is the synergies of effective messages showing informativeness, transparency, personal relevance, consistency, and third-party endorsement and an interactive process embracing employees’ inputs, feelings, and feedback. This finding provides an alternative view on the CSR communication conceptualization, suggesting that CSR communication is a multifaceted concept involving both instrumental and constitutive elements. Our research echoes Lemon’s (2019) call for switching from binary approaches to multiplicity in understanding internal communication and Kim’s (2022) hybrid CSR approach emphasizing both strategic and ethical considerations in CSR planning.

Our study also enhances CSR communication scholarship by including a stakeholder-centric perspective, which allows for more inclusive and critical theory development (Kim, 2022). By revealing salient beliefs employees hold regarding their CSR participation, our findings show the power dynamics and conflicts around CSR from an employee perspective, which has been less discussed as a dark side of CSR engagement. This critical view is important because the traditional organization-centric approach can easily make CSR an idealized corporate self-agenda (Costas & Kärreman, 2013), hiding employees’ vulnerability in CSR participation. Understanding the employee perspective is a prerequisite to developing ethical communication strategies connecting employees and organizational CSR efforts.

In addition, drawing on the reasoned action approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), this study bridges CSR communication and CSR engagement through a psychological lens. The reasoned action approach provides a more individual-centered view of understanding employees’ CSR experience. The linkages between CSR communication and attitude, PN, and PBC are theoretically important because they help unpack the underlying psychological mechanism that explains the value of communication in fostering internal CSR. Through receiving deliberatively designed CSR communication, employees’ perceived benefits, social support in the workplace, and controllability of engaging in CSR can be significantly facilitated. In addition, although the reasoned action theory usually focuses on one specific behavior, our findings suggest that employees’ attitudes and PN related to CSR participation were able to predict a multi-dimensional CSR engagement encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components.

Practical Implications

Our results on the positive relationship between CSR communication and employee engagement suggest that more attention and investment should be directed to developing internal CSR communication programs that carefully design messages and facilitate dialogues with employees. Managers may utilize our belief elicitation approach to better understand their employees’ reasons for engaging in CSR initiatives. For example, provide specific information on goals and achievements that help employees better recognize CSR engagement’s benefit. Managers need to reach out to important stakeholders who can contribute to cultivating an organizational culture that supports employees’ CSR participation. Managers also need to consider employees’ vulnerability when engaging in CSR activities, such as the conflicts between CSR engagement and job-related schedules. In addition, the findings from the main survey offer useful guidelines for developing internal CSR communication strategies. Both one-way and co-created approaches can help communicate CSR to employees. For example, through formal internal channels (e.g., emails and weekly reports), help communicate can deliver clear, transparent, consistent, and relevant messages about CSR. Furthermore, our findings on the mediating effects of PN emphasized the importance of creating a supportive organizational environment for employee CSR participation. An internal norm that supports CSR participation shows that organizations are not pursuing the face value of CSR, but incorporate CSR into their DNA (Nejati et al., 2020). We suggest that to drive employees’ active CSR engagement, leaders of the organization should act as role models to participate in CSR activities, and it would be helpful to create CSR activities that involve co-workers within and across many departments.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the contributions, this study has some limitations. First, given the positive outcomes of CSR engagement documented in the previous literature, more organizational and job-relevant outcomes could be added to the model to provide a more comprehensive understanding of internal CSR communication effects. Second, our survey was launched during the COVID-19 pandemic, but this study did not measure COVID-related variables, which may affect employees’ job status and their perceptions of CSR. Future research needs to include contextual variables or potential moderators to better understand the nuances of the CSR communication process. Third, to further understand the boundary effects of CSR communication, future research may examine moderators that influence the relationship between CSR communication and employee CSR engagement. Fourth, this study treats attitude, PN, and PBC as conceptually distinctive variables. However, empirical evidence has suggested the potential interrelations among these psychological factors (Lim & Lee-Won, 2017; Mou & Lin, 2015). Future research may employ experiments to analyze the serial mediations among attitude, PN, and PBC to further unpack further the psychological mechanism and sequence underlying employees’ CSR information processing.

Conclusion

Drawing on the reasoned action approach and CSR communication literature, this research employed both belief elicitation and survey techniques to conceptualize and empirically test an employee-centric CSR model. Findings showed CSR communication’s positive effects on employee CSR engagement, revealed the underlying psychological mechanisms, and identified key beliefs associated with employees’ intention to participate in organizational CSR activities. This study contributes to an employee-centered CSR communication model and provides useful guidelines for internal CSR promotion.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - How to Engage Employees in Corporate Social Responsibility? Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility Communication Effects Through the Reasoned Action Approach

Supplemental Material for How to Engage Employees in Corporate Social Responsibility? Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility Communication Effects Through the Reasoned Action Approach by Chuqing Dong, Yafei Zhang, and Song Ao in Management Communication Quarterly

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Chuqing Dong

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Dr. Chuqing Dong is an assistant professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University. Her research focuses on public relations, corporate social responsibility, and ethical relationship management.

Dr. Yafei Zhang is an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at the Renmin University of China. Zhang’s research focuses on strategic communication, corporate social responsibility, big data analysis, and social network analysis.

Dr. Song (Harris) Ao is a Research Assistant Professor at the University of Macau, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Communication. He received a Ph.D. in Communication from Hong Kong Baptist University. His research interests include how information and communication technologies bring mutual values to organizations and stakeholders via strategic communication.

References

Afsar

Umrani

W. A.

(2020). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), 402–428. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0257

Ajzen

(2012). Martin fishbein’s legacy: The reasoned action approach. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 640(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716211423363

Baumann-Pauly

Wickert

Spence

L. J.

Scherer

A. G.

(2013). Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1827-7

Bekmeier-Feuerhahn

Bögel

P. M.

Koch

(2017). Investigating internal CSR communication: Building a theoretical framework. In Diehl

Karmasin

Mueller

Terlutter

Weder

(Eds.), Handbook of integrated CSR communication (pp. 89–107). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44700-1_6

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

Korschun

(2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37–44. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2333549

Boccalandro

(2009). Mapping success in employee volunteering: The drivers of effectiveness for employee volunteering and giving programs and Fortune 500 performance. https://ccc.bc.edu/content/ccc/reports/mapping-success-in-employee-volunteering--the-drivers-of-effecti.html

Bolton

S. C.

Kim

R. C. H.

O’Gorman

K. D.

(2011). Corporate social responsibility as a dynamic internal organizational process: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0709-5

Brammer

Mellahi

(2015). Corporate social responsibility, employee organizational identification, and creative effort:the moderating impact of corporate ability. Group and Organization Management, 40(3), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114562246

Cacioppo

J. T.

Petty

R. E.

(1989). Effects of message repetition on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1001_2

10.

Carroll

A. B.

(1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G

11.

Carroll

A. B.

(1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303

12.

Chen

Y. R. R.

Hung-Baesecke

C. J. F.

(2014). Examining the internal aspect of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Leader behavior and employee CSR participation. Communication Research Reports, 31(2), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2014.907148

13.

Commission of the European Communities . (2001). Green paper promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/DOC_01_9

14.

Costas

Kärreman

(2013). Conscience as control – managing employees through CSR. Organization (London, England), 20(3), 394–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478584

15.

Crane

Glozer

(2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12196

16.

Dhanesh

G. S.

(2014). CSR as organization–employee relationship management strategy: A case study of socially responsible information technology companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318913517238

17.

Dodd

Supa

D. W.

(2011). Understanding the effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer purchase intention. The Public Relations Journal, 5(3), 1–19.

18.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x

19.

Duthler

Dhanesh

G. S.

(2018). The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and internal CSR communication in predicting employee engagement: Perspectives from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Public Relations Review, 44(4), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.001

20.

Elving

W. J. L.

Golob

Podnar

Ellerup - Nielsen

Thomson

(2015). The bad, the ugly and the good: New challenges for CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-02-2015-0006

21.

Fernandez-Feijoo

Romero

Ruiz

(2014). Commitment to corporate social responsibility measured through global reporting initiative reporting: Factors affecting the behavior of companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 81, 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.034

22.

Fishbein

(2008). A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 28(6), 834–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x08326092

23.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2010). Predicting and changing behavior : The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838020

24.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

25.

Golob

Podnar

Elving

W. J.

Ellerup Nielsen

Thomsen

Schultz

(2013). CSR communication: Quo vadis? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281311319472

26.

Haski-Leventhal

(2013). Employee engagement in CSR: The case of payroll giving in Australia. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1287

27.

Y. G.

Tao

Rim

(2022). Theoretical insights of CSR research in communication from 1980 to 2018: A bibliometric network analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(2), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04748-w

28.

Jiang

Luo

(2020). Driving employee engagement through CSR communication and employee perceived motives: The role of CSR-related social media engagement and job engagement. International Journal of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420960528

29.

Jiang

Shen

(2020). Toward a relational theory of employee engagement: Understanding authenticity, transparency, and employee behaviors. International Journal of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420954236

30.

Jones

D. A.

Willness

C. R.

Glavas

(2017). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) meets organizational psychology: New frontiers in micro-CSR research, and fulfilling a quid pro quo through multilevel insights. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(520), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00520

31.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287

32.

Kang

K. H.

Lee

Huh

(2010). Impacts of positive and negative corporate social responsibility activities on company performance in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.05.006

33.

Kim

H. R.

Lee

H. T.

Kim

N. M.

(2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee—company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2

34.

Kim

(2019). The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1143–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3433-6

35.

Kim

(2022). CSR communication from a public relations perspective. In O’Connor

(Ed.), The routledge handbook of corporate social responsibility communication (pp. 11–20). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003184911

36.

Kim

Ferguson

M. A. T.

(2018). Dimensions of effective CSR communication based on public expectations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(6), 549–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2015.1118143

37.

Kim

Ferguson

M. T.

(2014). Public expectations of CSR communication: What and how to communicate CSR. Public Relations Journal, 8(3), 1–22. http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Vol8/No3/

38.

Koch

Bekmeier-Feuerhahn

Bögel

P. M.

Adam

(2019). Employees’ perceived benefits from participating in CSR activities and implications for increasing employees engagement in CSR. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(2), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-12-2017-0123

39.

Lee

E. M.

Park

S. Y.

Lee

H. J.

(2013). Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1716–1724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.008

40.

Lee

S. Y.

Zhang

Abitbol

(2019). What makes CSR communication lead to CSR participation? Testing the mediating effects of CSR associations, CSR credibility, and organization–public relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3609-0

41.

Lee

Yue

C. A.

(2020). Status of internal communication research in public relations: An analysis of published articles in nine scholarly journals from 1970 to 2019. Public Relations Review, 46(3), 101906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101906

42.

Lemon

L. L.

(2019). The employee experience: How employees make meaning of employee engagement. Journal of Public Relations Research, 31(5-6), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2019.1704288

43.

Lim

Y. S.

Lee-Won

R. J.

(2017). When retweets persuade: The persuasive effects of dialogic retweeting and the role of social presence in organizations’ Twitter-based communication. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.09.003

44.

Lindgreen

Swaen

(2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00277.x

45.

Maignan

Ferrell

O. C.

(2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006262325211

46.

Chang

Lin

Chang

(2018). The theory of reasoned action to CSR behavioral intentions: The role of CSR expected benefit, CSR expected effort and stakeholders. Sustainability, 10(12), 4462. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124462

47.

Mirvis

(2012). Employee engagement and CSR: Transactional, relational, and developmental approaches. California Management Review, 54(4), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.93

48.

Morehouse

Saffer

A. J.

(2018). A bibliometric analysis of dialogue and digital dialogic research: Mapping the knowledge construction and invisible colleges in public relations research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(3), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1498343

49.

Morsing

Schultz

(2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x

50.

Morsing

Spence

L. J.

(2019). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and small and medium sized enterprises: The governmentality dilemma of explicit and implicit CSR communication. Human Relations (New York), 72(12), 1920–1947. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718804306

51.

Mou

Lin

C. A.

(2015). Exploring podcast adoption intention via perceived social norms, interpersonal communication, and theory of planned behavior. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 59(3), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1054997

52.

Nejati

Salamzadeh

Loke

C. K.

(2020). Can ethical leaders drive employees’ CSR engagement? Social Responsibility Journal, 16(5), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2018-0298

53.

Newman

Nielsen

Miao

(2015). The impact of employee perceptions of organizational corporate social responsibility practices on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Evidence from the Chinese private sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(9), 1226–1242. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.934892

54.

Park

Y. E.

Kang

(2020). When crowdsourcing in CSR leads to dialogic communication: The effects of trust and distrust. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101867

55.

Pomering

Dolnicar

(2009). Assessing the prerequisite of successful CSR implementation: Are consumers aware of CSR initiatives? Journal of Business Ethics, 85(S2), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9729-9

56.

Porter

(2020). PN purpose tracker: Employee perspectives on responsible leadership during crisis. https://www.porternovelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/02_Porter-Novelli-Tracker-Wave-X-Employee-Perspectives-on-Responsible-Leadership-During-Crisis.pdf

57.

Rich

B. L.

Lepine

J. A.

Crawford

E. R.

(2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988

58.

Rodrigo

Aqueveque

Duran

I. J.

(2019). Do employees value strategic CSR? A tale of affective organizational commitment and its underlying mechanisms. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(4), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12227

59.

Rodrigo

Arenas

(2008). Do employees care about CSR programs? A typology of employees according to their attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

60.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

61.

Roza

(2016). Employee engagement in corporate social responsibility (No. EPS-2016-396-ORG). https://repub.eur.nl/pub/93254/EPS2016396ORG.pdf

62.

Rupp

D. E.

Ganapathi

Aguilera

R. V.

Williams

C. A.

(2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.380

63.

Rupp

D. E.

Mallory

D. B.

(2015). Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, person-centric, and progressing. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111505

64.

Rupp

D. E.

Shao

Skarlicki

D. P.

Paddock

E. L.

Kim

T. Y.

Nadisic

(2018). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR specific relative autonomy and individualism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 559–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2282

65.

Rupp

D. E.

Shao

Thornton

M. A.

Skarlicki

D. P.

(2013). Applicants' and employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12030

66.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

67.

Schaefer

S. D.

Terlutter

Diehl

(2019). Is my company really doing good? Factors influencing employees’ evaluation of the authenticity of their company’s corporate social responsibility engagement. Journal of Business Research, 101(2019), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.030

68.

Schmeltz

(2017). Getting CSR communication fit: A study of strategically fitting cause, consumers and company in corporate CSR communication. Public Relations Inquiry, 6(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X16666731

69.

Schoeneborn

Morsing

Crane

(2020). Formative perspectives on the relation between CSR communication and CSR practices: Pathways for walking, talking, and T(w)alking. Business and Society, 59(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319845091

70.

Schultz

Castello

Morsing

(2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1826-8

71.

Shen

Jiang

(2019). Engaged at work? An employee engagement model in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 31(1-2), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2019.1585855

72.

Slack

R. E.

Corlett

Morris

(2015). Exploring employee engagement with (corporate) social responsibility: A social exchange perspective on organisational participation. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2057-3

73.

Story

Neves

(2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: Exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12084

74.

Tao

Song

Ferguson

M. A.

Kochhar

(2018). Employees’ prosocial behavioral intentions through empowerment in CSR decision-making. Public Relations Review, 44(5), 667–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.07.002

75.

Taylor

Todd

(1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(94)00019-K

76.

Tkalac Verčič

Verčič

Sriramesh

(2012). Internal communication: Definition, parameters, and the future. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.019

77.

Vanhamme

Grobben

(2009). “Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(S2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9731-2

78.

Welch

(2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281111186968

79.

Yang

S.-U.

Kang

Cha

(2015). A study on dialogic communication, trust, and distrust: Testing a scale for measuring organization-public dialogic communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998

80.

Yzer

Gilasevitch

(2019). Beliefs underlying stress reduction and depression help-seeking among college students: An elicitation study. Journal of American College Health: J of ACH, 67(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1462828

81.

Yzer

Weisman

Mejia

Hennrikus

Choi

DeSimone

(2015). Informing tobacco cessation benefit use interventions for unionized blue-collar workers: A mixed-methods reasoned action approach. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 16(6), 811–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0566-7

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.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB