CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
1
CSR as Organization-Employee Relationship Management Strategy: A Case Study of
Socially Responsible Information Technology Companies in India
(POST PRINT VERSION)
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ganga S Dhanesh,
Department of Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore, Blk AS6,
#03-41, 11 Computing Drive, Singapore 117416. E-mail: ganga@nus.edu.sg
Citation: 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. doi: 10.1177/0893318913517238
http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/28/1/130.abstract
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Abstract
This study examined corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a probable relationship
management strategy that could strengthen relationships between organizations and their
employees. Specifically, this study explored linkages between employee perceptions of their
organizations’ CSR practices and organization-employee relationship dimensions of trust,
commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Results, based on a survey (N=244) with
employees of two large, publicly listed companies in India, revealed strong, significant, and
positive associations between CSR and organization-employee relationships, especially
between legal, ethical, and discretionary dimensions of CSR and relationships. CSR is then
proposed as a relationship-management strategy, especially in the context of employee
relations.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, Employees, Relationship Management,
Employee relations, Organization-Employee Relationship, OPR, India
2
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
3
CSR as organization-employee relationship management strategy: A case study of
socially responsible information technology companies in India
Communication scholars researching the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
have generated a substantial body of scholarship primarily from instrumental and critical
perspectives (e.g., Chaudhri & Wang, 2007; Cloud, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Ihlen,
Bartlett & May, 2011). The instrumental approach takes the view that being socially
responsible can generate multiple benefits to organizations including favorable stakeholder
attitudes, behavioral intentions and stronger organization-stakeholder relationships (Aguilera,
Rupp, Williams & Ganapathi, 2007; Bhattacharya, Korschun & Sen, 2009). Relationship
management theorizing in public relations also posits social responsibility of organizations as
a relationship maintenance strategy that could affect the quality of relationships between
organizations and their publics (Hall, 2006; Kelly, 2001; Waters, 2009).
Although the instrumental perspective has spawned a large body of work testing the
reputational and financial benefits of CSR (e.g., Chaudhri & Wang, 2007; David, Kline &
Dai, 2005; Wigley, 2008), research testing the relational benefits of CSR is limited. Further,
most extant research that has tested the effects of CSR on organizational stakeholders has
focused on the customer stakeholder group (e.g., David et al., 2005; Wigley, 2008).
Following Aguilera et al. (2007) and May’s (2008) call for more focus on employees in CSR
research there has been rising interest in research on CSR from the perspective of employees.
Building on earlier calls to test whether the practice of CSR can help in relationship
management and to augment the growing literature on CSR from the perspective of
employees (Dhanesh, 2012; Lin, Tsai, Joe & Chiu, 2012; McShane & Cunningham, 2012;
Mirvis, 2012), this study sought to understand whether the CSR practices of their employing
organizations have any influence on employees’ relationships with their organizations and
what that influence, if any, includes. The information technology sector in India was chosen
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
4
as the site of study for a few reasons. First, India is one of the most important emerging Asian
economies with deep traditions of CSR (Mitra, 2007). Second, the information technology
sector has been at the forefront of India’s economic growth, employs a large number of
people and is active in the field of CSR (www.eiu.com, India Country Profile, 2011).
Therefore, findings of this study help fill a critical gap in CSR theorizing, especially from the
perspective of an important emerging Asian economy, strengthen theorizing on relationship
maintenance strategies and offer practitioners practical insights that can be used to infuse
employee-centered perspectives into their CSR plans, practices, and processes.
Literature Review
Definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility
The myriad definitions of CSR have tended to cluster into two main groups. The first
group, adapting Friedman’s (1962) assertion that the only social responsibility of business is
“to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays
within the rules of the game” (p. 133) argues that corporations should be socially responsible
because it brings back benefits to the corporation. For instance, to Drucker (1984), “The
proper ‘social responsibility’ of business is to tame the dragon, that is, to turn a social
problem into economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into
human competence, into well-paid jobs, and into wealth” (p. 62).
The second group, following Bowen’s (1953) broader conceptualization of CSR as the
“obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow
those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society”
(p. 6) defines CSR as corporations’ obligation to society and to stakeholders other than
stockholders. Public relations and organizational communication scholars too have mostly
followed this more inclusive definition. For instance, Coombs and Holladay (2012) defined
CSR as “the voluntary actions that a corporation implements as it pursues its mission and
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5
fulfills its perceived obligations to stakeholders, including employees, communities, the
environment, and society as a whole” (p.8).
Carroll (1991) reconciled these apparently conflicting foci on shareholders and
stakeholders in the two sets of definitions and defined CSR as “the simultaneous fulfillment
of the firm’s economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities” (p. 42). According
to Carroll (1991), economic responsibility relates to how society expects businesses to stay
profitable and includes the organization’s focus on economic indicators such as maximizing
profits. Legal responsibility relates to how society expects businesses to function within the
law. Ethical responsibility relates to the ever-changing and fluid ethical norms and practices
that society expects businesses to follow and varies from context to context. Finally,
philanthropic or discretionary responsibility relates to businesses’ response to society’s
expectations that corporations should be good corporate citizens.
This study chose Carroll’s (1991) definition of CSR because it encompasses a diverse and
comprehensive gamut of responsibilities that a corporation has to society, touches upon the
simultaneous navigation of often-conflicting responsibilities, indicates the temporal nature of
CSR issues, and has been one of the most accepted and widely used definitions of CSR in
academic research. In addition to Carroll’s (1991) dimensions, related concepts such as triple
bottom line (TBL) and sustainable development draw attention to the environmental
dimension, which is missing from Carroll’s definition. However, this paper argues that
Carroll’s dimensions of ethical and discretionary CSR that accommodate changing societal
norms and expectations are expansive enough to incorporate environmental aspects also.
Accordingly, additional questions on the environment were added to the research instrument.
Relationship Management Theorizing in Public Relations
This study is grounded in relationship management theorizing in the field of public
relations because managing relationships between organizations and their publics comprises
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
6
the core of public relations (Grunig, 1992; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). One of the most
entrenched theories in public relations (Gower, 2006), relationship management theory posits
that effectively managing relationships between organizations and their key publics over a
period of time brings back mutual benefits for the interacting parties (Ledingham, 2008; Men
& Hung, 2012).
Public relations scholars have attempted to identify dimensions of organization-public
relationships (OPR) and to develop scales for measuring these dimensions (e.g., Bruning &
Galloway, 2003; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ledingham, 2001). However, after reviewing the
body of research on relationship management in public relations, Ledingham (2008) found
that the Hon & Grunig (1999) scale has been the most widely used instrument to measure
OPR dimensions.
Hon and Grunig (1999) developed scales for the dimensions of trust, control mutuality,
commitment, and satisfaction. Trust refers to the level of confidence that relating parties have
in each other and their willingness to open themselves to the other party. It includes
perceptions of integrity (parties will follow through on their promises), dependability (parties
can be counted on to do what they say they will do), and competence (parties are capable of
doing what they say they will do). Control mutuality refers to the degree to which relating
parties are satisfied with the amount of control they have over the relationship. Commitment
refers to the extent to which relating parties believe that the relationship is worth expending
energy on to maintain and promote. Finally, satisfaction refers to the extent to which relating
parties feel favorably about each other. The scale has been used and found to be valid and
reliable in research on antecedents of OPR (Kim, 2007; Seltzer, Gardner, Bichard & Callison,
2012), the influence of relationship management strategies on OPRs (Hall, 2006; Waters,
2009) and the effect of OPR on variables such as reputation, attitude, behavioral intention
and behavior (Ki & Hon, 2007; Waters, 2009; Yang, 2007) and hence was chosen to measure
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
7
OPR in this study as well.
In addition to proposing dimensions of relationships, scholars have developed models of
OPR (Grunig & Huang, 2000; Broom, Casey & Ritchey, 2000) that propose effective
relationship maintenance strategies as precursors to determining the quality of OPRs (Grunig
& Huang, 2000). Relationship maintenance strategies include access, positivity, openness,
assurances, networking and sharing of tasks. Hon and Grunig (1999) also incorporated
stewardship, a set of relationship maintenance strategies proposed by Kelly (1998).
Stewardship strategies acknowledge the strategic value of previously established
relationships to future public relations efforts and comprise four elements of which one is
responsibility, wherein the organization acts in a socially responsible manner to those who
have supported it. Effectively employing these strategies has been posited to lead to high
quality relationship outcomes.
However, it is interesting to note that although (a) CSR and the stewardship strategy of
responsibility to one’s stakeholders have been proposed as probable relationship maintenance
strategies (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Jones & Bartlett, 2009; Kelly, 2001) and (b) relationship
maintenance strategies have been posited as precursors of relationship quality (Grunig &
Huang, 2000), scholarship that empirically explores CSR as an indicator of effective
organization-public relationships is limited. Nevertheless, there have been promising
attempts. For instance, Hall (2006) examined the impact of corporate philanthropy and
corporate community relations on the relationship between a company and its customers and
found that customers’ awareness of these programmes corresponded to a stronger
relationship. More pertinent to this study, Waters (2009) examined the influence of
stewardship on the fund-raising relationship and found that donors favor these strategies and
that responsibility significantly influenced the relationship dimensions of trust, control
mutuality, satisfaction and commitment. Do these findings elicited from customers and
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
8
donors hold true with employees as well?
CSR and Employee Relations
A thorough and extensive review of literature in organizational communication, marketing,
organizational behavior, human resources management, and public relations revealed two
main areas of scholarship on CSR and employees: examinations of the influence of CSR
practices on prospective employees and on current employees. First, a substantial amount of
research has focused on the attractiveness of organizational CSR practices to prospective
employees or job-seeking populations (e.g., Greening & Turban, 2000; Kim & Park, 2011;
Lin et al., 2012).
Second, and of more relevance to this study, research has centered on current employees.
Within this category, research has focused mostly on CSR and employee volunteering
(Muthuri, Matten, & Moon, 2009; Pajo & Lee, 2011) and the positive linkages between
employee perceptions of CSR and variables such as employee commitment (Dhanesh, 2012;
Peterson, 2004; Turker, 2009), trust (Lin, 2010), satisfaction (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008)
and turnover intentions (Stewart, 2011).
However, except for a few studies (e.g., Dhanesh, 2012; Peterson, 2004) most empirical
research has focused on only selected dimensions of CSR such as CSR in the community
(e.g., Hall, 2006). This study attempts to contribute to our understanding of the influence of
the four dimensions of CSR-discretionary, ethical, legal and economic-on the four
dimensions of relationships between organizations and their employees-trust, control
mutuality, commitment and satisfaction. Accordingly, the following research questions were
posited to guide this study. Are employees’ perceptions of their organizations’ CSR practices
significantly related to their relationships with their employing organization? Which
dimensions of CSR are most significantly related to the employees’ relationships with their
employing organizations?
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
9
Method
Research Method and Sampling
This study employed a survey research method and an online, self-administered
questionnaire because it is cheaper and faster to administer, is easier for employees to answer
at their own convenience, and enables easy follow-up and controlled sampling (Bryman,
2004). In order to identify companies that are actively engaged in CSR, the sampling frame
chosen was Standard & Poor’s India ESG Index, a list of 50 companies selected from the first
500 Indian companies by total market capitalization on the National Stock Exchange of India
Ltd. The criteria for selection includes the companies’ environmental, social, and governance
practices, parameters that closely correspond to indicators of CSR. All five information
technology companies in the sampling frame were invited to participate in the survey. One of
the three companies that agreed to participate could offer access to only 100 employees.
Hence, the pilot study was conducted in this organization, and the data was excluded from
the final analysis. The remaining two organizations that took part in the final survey were
typical of the five in the sampling frame, organizations with a large number of employees and
active in CSR. On behalf of the researcher, one organization sent an invitation to participate
to approximately 500 employees, and received 114 usable responses (response rate of 22.8%).
The other organization emailed the invitation to approximately 800 employees, and received
130 usable responses (response rate of 16.25%). Multiple waves of invitation/reminders were
sent over a period of four weeks. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the
sample.
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
10
The Survey Instrument
The construct of CSR was measured by adapting the instrument developed by Maignan
and Ferrell (2000) because it is based on Carroll’s (1991) four dimensions of CSR, it has
been one of the most widely used scales in CSR research, and it was designed specifically for
employees. Measuring 18 items on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree), the scale comprised items about the four dimensions of CSR:
discretionary, ethical, legal, and economic. Two questions on environment were added to
make up for the lack of focus on environment in the scale. Although the original scale had
questions on education, another item “This organization supports private and/or public
educational institutions” was added because a core component of CSR programs in India is
patronage of educational institutions (Mitra, 2007). The three additional questions added to
the discretionary dimension have been highlighted in the instrument (see Appendix).
Relationship between employees and their organizations was measured using Hon and
Grunig’s (1999) shortest version of the OPR scale (pp. 28-29) because it is the most widely
used scale in OPR research and has been found to be reliable and valid in multiple studies
(Kim, 2007; Ki & Hon, 2007; Ni, 2007; Seltzer et al., 2012; Waters, 2009; Yang, 2007). The
scale had 18 items measured on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree). However, one item from the dimension of control mutuality had to be
dropped during data analysis since it caused issues with scale reliability; thus 17 items were
used in the data analysis.
Data Analysis
Data analysis began with preliminary descriptive analyses. Since the CSR scale had been
modified Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted to test for scale reliability. Although the
generally accepted standard for scale reliability is .80, according to Nunnally (1967), an alpha
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
11
coefficient of 0.50 or greater is sufficient. Once reliabilities above .70 had been ensured,
indicators were grouped into their respective dimensions.
Correlations and regressions were employed to examine the data for relationships among
dependent and independent variables because they are the most commonly used statistical
methods to test for relationships among constructs (Bryman & Cramer, 2009). The
independent variables in this study were the four dimensions of CSR – discretionary, ethical,
legal and economic. The dependent variables were the four dimensions of OPR – trust,
control mutuality, commitment and satisfaction. The control variables were age of the
employee, tenure with the organization, and volunteering frequency.
Since the results of the correlation tests revealed high correlations between the four
dimensions of CSR, the regression analysis was set up such that each dependent variable was
regressed onto one independent variable at a time in order to avoid potential issues of
multicollinearity. In the regression analysis, five models for each of the four dependent
variables - trust, control mutuality, commitment and satisfaction were tested. In the baseline
model, the dependent variable was regressed onto the control variables of age, tenure with the
organization, and volunteering frequency. In the second model, the dependent variable was
regressed onto the control variables and discretionary CSR. In the third model, the dependent
variable was regressed onto the control variables and ethical CSR. In the fourth model, the
dependent variable was regressed onto the control variables and legal CSR. Finally, in the
fifth model, the dependent variable was regressed onto the control variables and economic
CSR. The researcher examined the goodness of fit for each model to determine the dimension
of CSR that had the most influence on each dependent variable.
Results
The dimensions of CSR were discretionary (α = 0.85), ethical (α = 0.82), legal (α = 0.75)
and economic (α = 0.74). The dimensions of relationships were trust (α = 0.91), commitment
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
12
(alpha = 0.90) and satisfaction (α = 0.93). Among the set of items measuring control
mutuality, one of the items — “in dealing with people like me this organization has a
tendency to throw its weight around” — posed problems in reliability. After deleting this
item, control mutuality had a Cronbach alpha of 0.89. The measures of reliability were
satisfactory, as all items except for two met or exceeded .80, the generally accepted standard
for scale reliability (Bryman, 2004). The remaining two items had Cronbach alphas higher
than .70, another acceptable standard (Nunally, 1967). See Appendix for items and Cronbach
alphas.
Overall, the four dimensions of CSR were evaluated positively by employees. Ethical
responsibility was rated the highest (M = 4.09, SD = 0.625), followed by economic (M = 4.01,
SD = 0.648), discretionary (M = 3.89, SD = 0.617) and legal responsibilities (M = 3.89, SD
= 0.726). The means, standard deviations and correlations for the CSR and relationship
constructs are shown in Table 2. Although respondents evaluated the four dimensions of CSR
highly, the results of the regression analysis, discussed next, revealed that some dimensions
were more strongly associated with specific relationship dimensions than others.
CSR and Trust
Although the respondents’ ages appeared as a significant predictor of trust, when
combined with the other variables of CSR, it ceased to be significant. Most importantly,
results showed that although all four dimensions of CSR are significant predictors of trust, Fchange was greatest when the dimension of ethical responsibility (β=0.777, p≤0.001;
Adj.R2= 0.609, F change=275.648, p≤0.001) was added onto the baseline model, followed by
legal (β=0.773, p≤0.001; Adj.R2= 0.579, F change=242.009, p≤0.001), discretionary
(β=0.764, p≤0.001; Adj.R2= 0.576, F change=239.531, p≤0.001) and economic
responsibilities (β=0.676, p≤0.001; Adj.R2= 0.466, F change=151.742, p≤0.001). These
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
13
findings suggest that among the four dimensions, the ethical dimension appears to be the
most important to respondents.
CSR and Control Mutuality
Although the respondents’ volunteering frequency was a significant predictor of control
mutuality, when combined with the other variables of CSR, it was not. Further results
revealed that although the four dimensions of CSR were significantly and positively related
to control mutuality, F-change was greatest when the dimension of discretionary
responsibility (β = 0.711, p≤ 0. 001; Adj. R² = 0.503, F change = 176.836, p<0.001) was
added onto the baseline model, followed by legal (β = 0.711, p≤ 0.001; Adj. R² = .494, F
change = 170.394, p<0.001), ethical (β = 0.683, p≤ 0.001; Adj. R² = 0.477, F change =
159.259, p<0.001), and economic responsibilities (β = 0.615, p≤ 0.001; Adj. R² = 0.390, F
change = 109.980, p<0.001).
CSR and Commitment
Although the respondents’ volunteering frequency was a significant predictor of
commitment, when combined with the other variables of CSR, it lost significance. Results
showed that all four dimensions of CSR are significantly and positively related to
commitment. However, F-change was the greatest when legal responsibility (β = 0.763,
p≤0.001; Adj.R2 = 0.549, F change = 219.165, p≤0.001) was added onto the baseline model,
followed by ethical (β = 0.743, p≤0.001; Adj.R2 = 0.544, F change = 214.228, p≤0.001),
discretionary (β = 0.747, p≤0.001; Adj.R2 = 0.537, F change = 208.655, p≤0.001), and
economic responsibilities (β = 0.635, p≤0.001; Adj.R2 = 0.398, F change = 118.026,
p≤0.001).
CSR and Satisfaction
Although the respondents’ volunteering frequency and age were significant predictors of
satisfaction, when combined with the other variables of CSR, they were not. Although the
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
14
four dimensions of CSR are significant predictors of satisfaction, F-change was greatest
when legal responsibility (β = 0.735, p≤0.001; Adj.R2 = 0.532, F change = 197.027, p≤0.001)
was added onto the baseline model, followed by discretionary (β = 0.717, p≤0.001; Adj.R2 =
0.517, F change = 184.084, p≤0.001), ethical (β = 0.674, p≤0.001; Adj.R2 = 0.474, F change
= 153.247, p≤0.001), and economic responsibilities (β = 0.589, p≤0.001; Adj.R2 = 0.366, F
change = 97.001, p≤0.001).
To summarize, the first research question asked whether employee perceptions of their
organizations’ CSR practices were significantly related to their relationships with their
organizations. Results showed strong, positive, and significant linkages. The second research
question asked which dimension of CSR was most significantly related to each of the
relational dimensions. The results showed that the legal dimension was most significantly
related to both commitment and satisfaction; the ethical dimension to trust and the
discretionary dimension to control mutuality.
Discussion
The findings of this study provide empirical support for CSR as a relationshipmaintenance strategy that could strengthen relationships between organizations and their
employees in terms of trust, control mutuality, commitment and satisfaction. These effects
could in turn engender other benefits such as positive attitudes and higher retention rates
(Bruning & Lambe, 2008; Seltzer et al., 2012). Thus, these findings empirically strengthen
the relational argument for engaging with CSR.
More importantly, although the results revealed strong correlations between the
multidimensional construct of CSR and OPR, the results of the regression analysis
foregrounded the importance of the legal, ethical, and discretionary dimensions over the
economic dimension of CSR. The legal dimension appeared to be the most important
especially with respect to commitment and satisfaction.
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
15
This finding could perhaps be explained using India’s economic context. Post economic
liberalization in the 1990s, India had emerged from an era of crippling crony capitalism aided
by a restrictive licensing system. The sunrise industries, such as information technology,
were seen as ‘clean’ industries staying within legal and regulatory limits. Employees in such
industries might have a preference for companies that have strong corporate governance
structures and consequently could have fore grounded the importance of legal and ethical
aspects of CSR over economic and discretionary.
However, this finding may not be restricted to India and/or the information technology
sector. Although legal compliance in many countries is a basic expectation and may not be a
predictor of strong employee relations, previous research conducted with employees across
industries and other contexts has also found that employees value legal and ethical aspects of
CSR over the other two (Dhanesh, 2012; Peterson, 2004; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008).
This could be because effects of non-compliance would perhaps be most acutely felt by
employees, particularly in terms of job losses. For example, the founder and CEO of one of
the most reputed information technology companies in India, Satyam, had engaged in
massive accounting fraud, blatantly flouting legal and ethical boundaries, almost leading to
the dissolution of the company with devastating impacts on its over 40,000 employees. Enron,
WorldCom, Olympus Corporation and PFG Best offer similar examples from other contexts.
Finally, the findings also revealed that the employees derived a sense of control mutuality
from the discretionary CSR practices employed by their organizations. This could be due to
the influence of the employees’ volunteering programmes in the participating companies.
Active employee engagement in the planning and operational aspects of implementing CSR
could give employees a sense of collaboration and the feeling that their opinions and inputs
are taken into consideration, thus enhancing their perceptions of control over their
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
16
relationship with their organization. These findings have important implications for theory
and practice.
Implications for Theory
This study contributes to the literature by offering empirical support to the argument that
being socially responsible could be an effective relationship-maintenance strategy for
organizations, thus augmenting the literature on CSR and relationship management. Most
studies on relationship maintenance strategies have examined the influence of strategies such
as openness, access and networking. This study tested the influence of Kelly’s (2001)
stewardship strategy of responsibility, operationalized as CSR, and found that social
responsibility can be an effective relationship maintenance strategy, especially in the
relationship between organizations and their employees. These findings support Hall’s (2006)
and Waters’ (2009) work on establishing social responsibility as an effective relationship
maintenance strategy with customers and donors.
However, most importantly, the study examined and found which among the four
dimensions of CSR have relatively more influence on the relationships between organizations
and their employees. The results are a key contribution to the literature since most extant
research on CSR and relationships are unidimensional, examining only one dimension of
CSR with one dimension of relationship, such as commitment or satisfaction. Such studies
have found significant relationships between the two constructs (e.g., Hall, 2006). However,
when this study examined multiple dimensions of CSR, the ethical and legal dimensions
appeared to exert stronger influences on relationships than the discretionary dimension. This
finding appears to empirically validate May’s (2008) argument that the ethical engagement of
employees should be one of the key focus areas in building the CSR agenda of organizations.
Implications for Practice
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
17
The results revealed that the ethical engagement of employees helps to engender the
employees’ trust in their organizations. Further, employees’ commitment to and satisfaction
with their organizations were most strongly associated with the organizations’ adherence to
the laws of the land in which they operate. Organizations could make use of these findings as
a tool for talent attraction and retention. This is even more pertinent for organizations in the
knowledge sector, which are people-intensive and face challenges in attracting and retaining
talent. Companies that are ranked highly on corporate governance and/or ethical parameters
can leverage their ranking as a talent attraction and retention tool, findings supported by
previous research as well (Kim & Park, 2011; Lin et al., 2012).
Although employees foregrounded legal and ethical aspects of CSR, the importance of
discretionary CSR was not lost on them as there was a significant relationship between
discretionary CSR and control mutuality. Accordingly, it may be worthwhile for
organizations to invest in typical “discretionary” activities such as: (1) supporting local
businesses, charities and educational institutions, (2) reducing resource wastage, and (3)
supporting employees to acquire additional life skills or attain work-life balance (Maignan &
Ferrell, 2000).
Limitations and Future Research
Although the results of this study revealed that fulfilling an organization’s social
responsibilities appears to be an effective strategy in managing relationships with an
organization’s publics, specifically its employees, the study has its limitations. Social
desirability bias could have affected the results, since the employees knew that their
relationships with their employers were being investigated. Also, the findings could have
been influenced by the industry and country contexts of this study.
To address these limitations, future research could test the influence of multiple
dimensions of CSR on employee-organization relationships across industries and countries.
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
18
Further, an interpretive qualitative study that explores the whys behind the findings of this
study might add richness and depth to the findings of this quantitative study. For instance, it
would be intriguing to probe why employees across contexts foreground legal and ethical
aspects of CSR over the other two dimensions. Finally, the respondents who volunteered are
more likely to be pro social and value CSR. This possibility of respondent self-selection
could constrain the generalizability of the findings. Despite these limitations, this study
provides some initial empirical support to the instrumental argument that being socially
responsible could be an effective relationship-management strategy for organizations,
especially in the context of employee relations. The study also lends support for emphasizing
legal, ethical and discretionary dimensions of CSR over the economic dimension in
maintaining positive employee relations.
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
19
References
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in
corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836-863. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.25275678
Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder-company
relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives.
Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 257-272. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9730-3
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization-public
relationships. In J.A. Ledingham & S.D. Bruning (Eds.), Relationship management: A
relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bruning S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization–public relationship scale:
Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization–public
relationships. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 309-319. doi:10.1016/S03638111(03)00042-0
Bruning, S. D., & Lambe, K. E. (2008). Linking worldview, relationship attitudes, and
behavioral outcomes: Implications for the study and practice of public relations. Journal
of Promotion Management, 14(3), 139-151. doi:10.1080/10496490802620313
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 14, 15 & 16: A guide
for social scientists. New York, NY: Routledge.
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
20
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.
doi:10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
Chaudhri, V., & Wang, J. (2007). Communicating CSR on the Internet: A case study of the
top 100 information technology companies in India. Management Communication
Quarterly, 21(2), 232-247. doi:10.1177/0893318907308746
Cloud, D. L. (2007) Corporate social responsibility as oxymoron: Universalization and
exploitation at Boeing. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over
corporate social responsibility (pp. 219-231). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Coombs, T.W. & Holladay, S. J. (2012). Managing corporate social responsibility: A
communication approach. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
David, P., Kline, S. & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate
identity, and purchase intention: A dual-process model. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 17(3), 291-313. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1703_4
Dhanesh, G. S. (2012). The view from within: Internal publics and CSR. Journal of
Communication Management, 16(1), 39-58. doi:10.1108/13632541211197987
Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California
Management Review, 26(2), 53-63. doi:10.2307/41165066
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gower, K. K. (2006). Public relations research at the crossroads. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 18(2), 177-190. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_6
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive
advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), 254-280.
doi:10.1177/000765030003900302
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
21
Grunig, J. E. (Ed.) (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship
indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship
outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Relationship management: A
relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23-54). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hall, M. R. (2006). Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations: Measuring
relationship-building results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 1-21.
doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1801_1
Hon, L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.
Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations Research, University of Florida. Retrieved
from http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/guidelines_measuring_relationships/
Ihlen, O., Bartlett, J.L., & May, S. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and
corporate social responsibility. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Jones, K. & Bartlett, J.L. (2009). The strategic value of corporate social responsibility: A
relationship management framework for public relations practice. PRism, 6(1). Retrieved
from http://www.prismjournal.org/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal_Files/Jones_Bartlett.pdf
Kelly, K.S. (1998, June). Stewardship: The missing step in the public relations process.
Paper presented at the first annual international, interdisciplinary research conference,
Public Relations Society of America Educator Academy, College Park, MD.
Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In R. L. Heath
(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp.279-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
22
Kim, H. (2007). A multilevel study of antecedents and a mediator of employee-organization
relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 167-197.
doi:10.1080/10627260701290695
Kim, S-Y. & Park, H. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as an organizational
attractiveness for prospective public relations practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics,
103(4), 639-653. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0886-x
Ki, E., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public relationship
and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(1), 1-23.
doi:10.1080/10627260709336593
Ledingham, J.A. (2001). Government-community relationships: Extending the relational
theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 285-295. doi:10.1016/S03638111(01)00087-X
Ledingham, J. A. (2008). Cross-cultural public relations: A review of existing models with
suggestions for a post-industrial public relations pyramid. Journal of Promotion
Management, 14(3), 225-241. doi:10.1080/10496490802637853
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (Eds.). (2000). Public relations as relationship
management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Lin, C-P. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement
based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517-531.
doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6
Lin, C-P., Tsai, Y-H., Joe, S-W., & Chiu, C-K. (2012). Modeling the relationship among
perceived corporate citizenship, firm's attractiveness, and career success expectation.
Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 83-93. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0949-z
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
23
Maignan, I., & 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.
doi:10.1023/A:1006262325211
May, S. (2008). Reconsidering strategic corporate social responsibility: Public relations and
ethical engagement of employees in a global economy. In A. Zerfass, B. Van Ruler & K.
Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research: European and international perspectives and
innovations (pp. 365-383). Netherlands: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.
Men, L.J. R., & Hung, C.J. F. (2012). Exploring the roles of organization-public relationships
in the strategic management process: Towards an integrated framework, International
Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(2), 151-173. doi:10.1080/1553118X.2011.605778
McShane, L., & Cunningham, P. (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees' judgments of
the authenticity of their organization's corporate social responsibility program. Journal of
Business Ethics, 108(1), 81-100. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1064-x
Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR: Transactional, relational, and
developmental approaches. California Management Review, 54(4), 93-117.
doi:10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.93
Mitra, M. (2007). It’s only business! India’s corporate social responsiveness in a globalized
world. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
Muthuri, J. N., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2009). Employee volunteering and social capital:
Contributions to corporate social responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20(1),
75-89. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00551.x
Ni, L. (2007). Refined understanding of perspectives on employee-organization relationships:
Themes and variations. Journal of Communication Management, 11(1), 53-70.
doi:10.1108/13632540710725987
Nunnally, J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
24
Pajo, K., & Lee, L. (2011). Corporate-sponsored volunteering: A work design perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 467-482. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0665-0
Peterson, D. K. (2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and
organizational commitment. Business and Society, 43(3), 296-319.
doi:10.1177/0007650304268065
Seltzer, T., Gardner, E., Bichard, S., & Callison, C. (2012). PR in the ER: Managing internal
organization–public relationships in a hospital emergency department. Public Relations
Review, 38(1), 128-136. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.002
Stewart, R.W. (2011). You support diversity, but are you ethical? Examining the interactive
effects of diversity and ethical climate perceptions on turnover intentions. Journal of
Business Ethics, 99(3), 453-465. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0663-2
Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment.
Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189-204. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9993-8
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social
responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159-172.
doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9306-z
Waters, R. D. (2009). Measuring stewardship in public relations: A test exploring impact on
the fundraising relationship. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 113-119.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.012
Wigley, S. (2008). Gauging consumers' responses to CSR activities: Does increased
awareness make cents? Public Relations Review, 34(3), 306-308.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.034
Yang, S. (2007). An integrated model for organization-public relational outcomes,
organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research,
19(2), 91-121. doi:10.1080/10627260701290612
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
25
Appendix
Items and Cronbach Alphas of the Constructs of CSR and Organization-Public Relationship
Constructs and items
1) Discretionary CSR (α=0.852)
This organization gives adequate contribution to charities
This organization supports private and/or public educational institutions (additional question).
This organization has a program in place to reduce the amount of energy and materials wasted in its business.
This organization participates in activities that aim to protect and/or improve the quality of the natural
environment (additional question).
This organization encourages partnerships with local businesses.
This organization implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment
(additional question).
This organization supports employees who acquire additional education.
This organization has flexible policies that enable employees to better co-ordinate work and personal life
2) Ethical CSR (α=0.817)
This organization has a comprehensive code of conduct.
This organization is recognized as a trustworthy company.
In this organization fairness towards co-workers and/or business partners is an integral part of the employee
evaluation process.
The salespersons and employees of this organization are required to provide full and accurate information to all
customers.
This organization has a confidential procedure in place for employees to report any misconduct at work.
3) Legal CSR (α=0.757)
This organization seeks to comply with all laws regulating hiring and employee benefits.
This organization has internal policies that prevent discrimination in employees compensation and promotion.
The managers of this organization try to comply with the law.
This organization has programs that encourage the diversity of its workforce.
4) Economic CSR (α=0.743)
This organization has been successful at maximizing its profits.
This organization strives to lower its operating costs.
The top management of this organization establishes long term strategies for the business.
This organization closely monitors employees productivity.
5) Trust (α=0.913)
This organization treats people like me fairly and justly.
Whenever this organization makes an important decision I know it will be concerned about people like me.
This organization can be relied on to keep its promises.
I believe that this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions.
I feel very confident about this organization’s skills.
This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.
6) Control Mutuality (α=0.890)
This organization and people like me are attentive to what each other say.
This organization believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.
This organization really listens to what people like me have to say.
7) Commitment (α=0.896)
I feel that this organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to people like me.
I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with people like me.
There is a long-lasting bond between this organization and people like me.
Compared to other organizations I value my relationship with this organization more.
8) Satisfaction (α=0.926)
I am happy with this organization.
CSR AS EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship.
Most people like me are happy in their interactions with this organization.
Generally speaking I am pleased with the relationship this organization has established with people like me.
Bio
Ganga S Dhanesh (Ph.D., National University of Singapore) is an assistant professor in the
Department of Communications and New Media at National University of Singapore,
Singapore. Her main research interests include corporate social responsibility, employee
relations, and strategic communication management.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr Milagros Rivera, Dr Cho Hichang, Dr Mohan J Dutta, Dr Linda M
Perry, the Editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and
suggestions.
Author’s Note
An earlier version of this article was presented at the International Communication
Association Conference in May, 2012.
26