Amidst stakeholder demands for transparency and the recent pandemic, the inner workings of supply chains have become more visible. This visibility has shone a spotlight on workplace corporate social irresponsibility (CSI)—actions within a company's internal supply chain operations perceived to harm the well-being of its employees. At the same time, companies scrambling to recruit new talent for operations and supply chain management (OM/SCM) face dual challenges in the shortage of diverse talent and the emergence of new generations in the workforce. Research indicates that younger generations and women more broadly expect social responsibility from their employers, but it is unclear how they perceive social irresponsibility when evaluating job offers. To begin to address this gap, we draw on attribution theory and develop hypotheses that examine prospective employees’ responses to workplace CSI in supply chain operations and whether their responses vary with gender and pay. Results from a conjoint task and mixed effects models reveal that both young men and young women respond negatively to job offers from firms with pervasive workplace CSI across their supply chain operations and atypical levels of workplace CSI relative to other firms. Although we do not find gender differences in general, supplementary analyses offer more nuanced insights (e.g., young men respond less favorably than young women when workplace CSI is pervasive, whereas young women respond more favorably than young men to above-average pay). Overall, our study advances understanding of the spillover effects of workplace CSI on new talent recruitment and highlights that the new generation's preferences run deeper than traditional gender-based expectations. In doing so, we offer timely guidance for executives and human resource managers as companies struggle to recruit diverse new OM/SCM talent.
AbbasiMAAmranASaharNE (2024) Assessing the impact of corporate environmental irresponsibility on workplace deviant behavior of generation Z and millennials: A multigroup analysis. International Journal of Ethics and Systems40(1): 45–67.
2.
AdamsRBFerreiraD (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics94(2): 291–309.
3.
AguinisHGlavasA (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management38(4): 932–968.
4.
AntonettiPCrisafulliBTuncdoganA (2021) Just look the other way”: Job seekers’ reactions to the irresponsibility of market-dominant employers. Journal of Business Ethics174: 403–422.
5.
BackhausKBStoneBAHeinerK (2002) Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Business & Society41(3): 292–318.
6.
BhattacharyaCBSenSKorschunD (2008) Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review49(2): 36–45.
7.
ByronKPostC (2016) Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review24(4): 428–442.
8.
ChapmanDSUggerslevKLCarrollSA, et al. (2005) Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology90(5): 928–924.
9.
ChenGGullySMEdenD (2001) Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods4(1): 62–83.
10.
ChillakuriB (2020) Understanding Generation Z expectations for effective onboarding. Journal of Organizational Change Management33(7): 1277–1296.
11.
CorbettCNarayananS (2022) Call for papers: Special issue of production and operations management “diversity, equity, and inclusion in operations and supply chain management”. Production and Operations Management31(7): 3061–3063.
12.
CottrillK (2019) Closing supply chain’s gender gap: Slow progress in a fast-changing workplace.MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics. Retrieved September 1, 2022. https://medium.com/mitsupplychain/closing-supply-chains-gender-gap-slow-progress-in-a-fast-changing-workplace-75ba3dc9c31e.
13.
CrosonRGneezyU (2009) Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature47(2): 448–474.
14.
CummingDLeungTYRuiO (2015) Gender diversity and securities fraud. Academy of Management Journal58(5): 1572–1593.
15.
EaglyAH (1983) Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist38(9): 971.
16.
EaglyAHKiteM (1987) Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both men and women?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology53: 451–462.
17.
FilerRK (1985) Male-female wage differences: The importance of compensating differentials. ILR Review38(3): 426–437.
18.
Gartner (2023) Gartner says 26% of supply chain C-suite roles now filled by women. Retrieved March 15, 2024. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2023-06-29-gartner-says-26-percent-of-supply-chain-csuite-roles-now-filled-by-women.
19.
GoebelPReuterCPibernikR, et al. (2018) Purchasing managers’ willingness to pay for attributes that constitute sustainability. Journal of Operations Management62(9): 44–58.
20.
GondJPEl AkremiASwaenV, et al. (2017) The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior38(2): 225–246.
21.
GreenPESrinivasanV (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing54(4): 3–19.
22.
GreeningDWTurbanDB (2000) Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society39(3): 254–280.
23.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJ, et al. (2009) Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
HaroldCMHoltzBCGriepentrogBK, et al. (2016) Investigating the effects of applicant justice perceptions on job offer acceptance. Personnel Psychology69(1): 199–227.
25.
HartmannJMoellerS (2014) Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior. Journal of Operations Management32(5): 281–294.
26.
HarveyPMadisonKMartinkoM, et al. (2014) Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: The road traveled and the path ahead. Academy of Management Perspectives28(2): 128–146.
27.
HeiderF (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
28.
HericherCBridouxF (2023) Employees’ emotional and behavioral reactions to corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Management49(5): 1533.
29.
HiraFASinghHAhmedN, et al. (2021) Factors influencing organizational attractiveness among millennial job seekers: A study on students in Malaysian research universities. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics & Management Sciences10(3): 383–400.
30.
JacobsBWKraudeRNarayananS (2016) Operational productivity, corporate social performance, financial performance, and risk in manufacturing firms. Production and Operations Management25(12): 2065–2085.
31.
JainTZamanR (2020) When boards matter: The case of corporate social irresponsibility. British Journal of Management31(2): 365–386.
32.
JonesDA (2019) The psychology of CSR. In: McWilliamsA, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological and Organizational Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 18–47.
33.
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(426): 1–16.
34.
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.
KangCGermannFGrewalR (2016) Washing away your sins? Corporate social responsibility, corporate social irresponsibility, and firm performance. Journal of Marketing80(2): 59–79.
37.
KarimiARoyD (2024) Procurement for empowerment: The impact of female decision-makers in reproductive health supply chains. Production and Operations Managementxx(x): 1–17.
38.
KatzROgilvieSShawJ, et al. (2022) Gen Z, explained: The art of living in a digital age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
KellerSBRalstonPMLeMaySA (2020) Quality output, workplace environment, and employee retention: The positive influence of emotionally intelligent supply chain managers. Journal of Business Logistics41(4): 337–355.
40.
KelleyHH (1973) The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist28(2): 107–128.
KimJMillimanJLucasA (2020) Effects of CSR on employee retention via identification and quality-of-work-life. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management32(3): 1163–1179.
43.
KircherTFoerdererJ (2024) Ban targeted advertising in apps? An empirical investigation of the consequences for app development. Management Science70(2): 1070–1092.
44.
KonradAMRitchie JrJELiebP, et al. (2000) Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin126(4): 593.
45.
LangeDWashburnNT (2012) Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review37(2): 300–326.
46.
Le BarbanchonTRathelotRRouletA (2021) Gender differences in job search: Trading off commute against wage. The Quarterly Journal of Economics136(1): 381–426.
47.
LeeLChenLF (2018) Boosting employee retention through CSR: A configurational analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management25(5): 948–960.
48.
LenzIWetzelHAHammerschmidtM (2017) Can doing good lead to doing poorly? Firm value implications of CSR in the face of CSI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science45(5): 677–697.
49.
Lin-HiNMüllerK (2013) The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research66(10): 1928–1936.
50.
LuceRABarberAEHillmanAJ (2001) Good deeds and misdeeds: A mediated model of the effect of corporate social performance on organizational attractiveness. Business & Society40(4): 397–415.
51.
MaSHaoLAloysiusJA (2021) Women are an advantage in supply chain collaboration and efficiency. Production and Operations Management30(5): 1427–1441.
52.
MaioliE (2017) New generations and employment: An exploratory study about tensions between the psycho-social characteristics of the Generation Z and expectations and actions of organizational structures related with employment. Journal of Business2(1): 01–12.
53.
McCabeACIngramRDato-OnMC (2006) The business of ethics and gender. Journal of Business Ethics64: 101–116.
54.
McNeishDKelleyK (2019) Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: Reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. Psychological Methods24(1): 20–35.
55.
MettersRGeorgeJ (2024) Research in diversity: Lessons for operations management from the women’s studies field. Production and Operations Managementxx(x): 1–10.
MoynihanLMRoehlingMVLePineMA, et al. (2003) A longitudinal study of the relationships among job search self-efficacy, job interviews, and employment outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology18(2): 207–233.
58.
Ngoc ThangNRowleyCMayrhoferW, et al. (2022) Generation Z job seekers in Vietnam: CSR-based employer attractiveness and job pursuit intention. Asia Pacific Business Review29(3): 797–815.
59.
NicholsBSStolzeHKirchoffJF (2019) Spillover effects of supply chain news on consumers’ perceptions of product quality: An examination within the triple bottom line. Journal of Operations Management65(6): 536–559.
PriceJMSunW (2017) Doing good and doing bad: The impact of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility on firm performance. Journal of Business Research80: 82–97.
64.
RieraMIborraM (2017) Corporate social irresponsibility: Review and conceptual boundaries. European Journal of Management and Business Economics26(2): 146–162.
65.
SamekA (2019) Gender differences in job entry decisions: A university-wide field experiment. Management Science65(7): 3272–3281.
66.
ScottADavis-SramekBKetchenDJ (2024) Men at work… unsafely: Gender differences in compliance with safety regulations in the trucking industry. Production and Operations Managementxx(x): 1–19.
67.
SheaCTHawnOV (2019) Microfoundations of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility. Academy of Management Journal62(5): 1609–1642.
68.
ShepherdDAPatzeltHBaronRA (2013) “I care about nature, but…”: Disengaging values in assessing opportunities that cause harm. Academy of Management Journal56(5): 1251–1273.
69.
SilaI (2018) Linking quality with social and financial performance: A contextual, ethics-based approach. Production and Operations Management27(6): 1102–1123.
70.
SkudieneVAuruskevicieneV (2012) The contribution of corporate social responsibility to internal employee motivation. Baltic Journal of Management7(1): 49–67.
71.
SodhiMS (2015) Conceptualizing social responsibility in operations via stakeholder resource-based view. Production and Operations Management24(9): 1375–1389.
72.
SoundararajanVWilhelmMMCraneA (2021) Humanizing research on working conditions in supply chains: Building a path to decent work. Journal of Supply Chain Management57(2): 3–13.
73.
TurbanDBGreeningDW (1997) Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal40(3): 658–672.
74.
VenkateshVChanFKThongJY (2012) Designing e-government services: Key service attributes and citizens’ preference structures. Journal of Operations Management30(1-2): 116–133.
75.
VinereanSCetinaIDumitrescuL (2013) Modeling employee satisfaction in relation to CSR practices and attraction and retention of top talent. Expert Journal of Business and Management1(1): 4–14.
76.
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.
77.
WangHYChenZX (2022) Corporate social responsibility and job applicant attraction: A moderated-mediation model. PLOS ONE17(3): 1–19.
78.
WaplesCJBrachleBJ (2020) Recruiting millennials: Exploring the impact of CSR involvement and pay signaling on organizational attractiveness. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management27(2): 870–880.
WiengartenFFanDLoCK, et al. (2017) The differing impacts of operational and financial slack on occupational safety in varying market conditions. Journal of Operations Management52(5): 30–45.
81.
WilhelmMBhakooVSoundararajanV, et al. (2024) Beyond compliance-based governance: the role of social intermediaries in mitigating forced labour in global supply chains. Production and Operations Managementxx(x): 1–20.
WowakKDBallGPPostC, et al. (2021) The influence of female directors on product recall decisions. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management23(4): 895–913.
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.
