Investigating relationships between Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation
And Employer Attractiveness in Hong Kong’s graduate labour market
KAN, Hing Ki
MSc (accounting), MSc (strategic focus), BSc, A.C.I.S., A.C.S.
Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Business Administration
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh Business School
March 2013
The copyright in this thesis is owned by the author. Any quotation from the thesis or use of any
of the information contained in it must acknowledge this thesis as the source of the quotation or
information.
Abstract
Achieving a good organization-person fit is vital to organizational survival and can also
create a win-win phenomenon for both employers and job applicants. One of the factors of this
‘fit’ can hinge on how job applicants perceive whether their prospective employers have
corporate social responsibilities (‘CSR’) that match their own corporate social responsibility
orientation (‘CSRO’) and CSRO can be one of the employer-attractiveness influencing factors.
However, the construct and definition of CSR and CSRO have been elusive, subject to different
social-cultural environments, time frame and value orientations of people.
This study qualitatively investigates the relationships, if any, between the Corporate
Social Responsibility Orientation of undergraduate students in their senior years (full-time and
part-time students) and Employer Attractiveness (‘EA’) in Hong Kong’s graduate labour market.
It tries to find out whether students’ CSRO would influence their employment decisions towards
organizations which have exhibited various extents and types of socially responsible behaviors.
There were 97 participants spread among 15 focus-groups later classified into 6
categories in various study majors and study modes. They were all undergraduate students in
their senior year of study.
Findings from the study provide evidence that students generally aspired to work for a
good CSR organization, and this was a telling factor in their employment-decision. However,
students had a ‘CSR’ connotation differing from those established in previous research. Most of
the students in this research thought that for an organization to be considered socially
responsible and attractive in terms of their employment-decisions, the organization is normally
expected to take up some responsibilities associated with a responsible-employer (‘RER’).
i
However, it was found that their actual employment decisions were at variance from their
espoused ethical position prior to seeking employment. Alternative interpretations, based on
sensemaking, of the qualitative data will be explored and insights for students, educators and
companies will be derived
The outcomes of the research could be informative for both human resources
management theory and practice in organisations where there is a debate over whether, and
how, they should pursue a CSR agenda. Furthermore, this research adds to literature which
seeks to link CSR, CSRO, employment recruitment and employer attractiveness.
ii
Dedication
In memory of my late father KAN, Kwok Chan. My beloved mother and family.
iii
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my sincere gratitude and indebtedness to Prof. Nic Beech for his
unwavering support and guidance throughout the supervision of this thesis.
I am also grateful for the focus-group interview participants and phone-interview
respondents for their time and candour in providing valuable information and sharing their
experiences and insights.
iv
Research Thesis Submission
v
Table of Contents
Title Page
Abstract........................................................................................................................................ i
Dedication .................................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... iv
Research Thesis Submission ...................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xiv
Glossary of Definitions/Abbreviations ........................................................................................ xv
1.
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 1
1.2
Research Questions ................................................................................................. 3
1.3
Research Methodology ............................................................................................. 4
1.4
Chapter Outline ........................................................................................................ 5
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 7
2.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1
The Problem ............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.2
Context of the Problem ............................................................................................. 8
2.1.3
Practical Importance of the Research ....................................................................... 9
2.2
Conceptual Development of CSR ............................................................................11
2.2.1
History and Evolution ...............................................................................................11
2.2.2
Conceputalization and Definitions ............................................................................15
2.2.3
Arguments For and Against CSR .............................................................................17
2.2.3.1
Arguments for CSR ..........................................................................................17
vi
2.2.3.2
2.2.4
Arguments against CSR ...................................................................................18
Carroll’s 4-Domain CSR Model ................................................................................19
2.2.4.1
Economic Responsibilities ................................................................................23
2.2.4.2
Legal Responsibilities .......................................................................................23
2.4.2.3
Ethical Responsibilities .....................................................................................24
2.2.4.4
Discretionary or Philanthropic Responsibilities .................................................24
2.2.4.5
Summary of Carroll’s 4-Domain Model .............................................................25
2.2.4.6
Criticisms/Arguments on Carroll’s 4-Domain CSR Model .................................25
2.2.5
Schwartz and Carroll’s Three-Domain CSR Model ..................................................25
2.2.5.1
Economic Responsibilities ................................................................................27
2.2.5.2
Legal Responsibilities .......................................................................................28
2.2.5.3
Ethical Responsibilities .....................................................................................28
2.2.5.4
Overlapping of the Three Domains ...................................................................29
2.2.5.5
Limitations of the 3-Domain CSR Model ...........................................................29
2.3
What Do Good CSR Organizations Do? ..................................................................30
2.4
Conceptual Development of CSRO .........................................................................31
2.4.1
Background .............................................................................................................31
2.4.2
Aupperle’s CSRO Measure......................................................................................32
2.4.3
CSRO and Key Stakeholders ..................................................................................33
2.4.3.1
CSRO and Consumers .....................................................................................34
2.4.3.2
CSRO and Investors ........................................................................................34
2.4.3.3
CSRO and Business Leaders ...........................................................................35
2.4.4
2.5
Students’ CSRO ......................................................................................................35
Employer Attractiveness ..........................................................................................37
2.5.1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................37
2.5.2
Organization-Person Fit ...........................................................................................38
vii
2.5.3
Commonly Occurring Influencing Factors ................................................................39
2.5.3.1
Organizational Recruitment ..............................................................................39
2.5.3.2
Recruitment Image ...........................................................................................40
2.5.3.3
Organizational Choice ......................................................................................41
2.5.4
Influencing Factors of EA to Potential Applicants .....................................................42
2.5.4.1
Gender of Applicants ........................................................................................42
2.5.4.2
Student Academic Status .................................................................................43
2.5.4.3
Familiarity with Prospective Employers ............................................................43
2.5.4.4
CSP/CSR .........................................................................................................43
2.6
Relationship between Undergraduate Students’ CSRO and EA...............................45
2.6.1
Background .............................................................................................................45
2.6.2
Previous Research ..................................................................................................45
2.6.3
Research Gaps........................................................................................................46
2.6.4
Conceptual Framework for Present Research .........................................................48
2.7
Research Questions ................................................................................................49
2.7.1
Research Question One ..........................................................................................49
2.7.2
Research Question Two ..........................................................................................49
2.7.3
Research Question Three ........................................................................................49
2.7.4
Research Question Four ..........................................................................................49
3.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................50
3.1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................50
3.2
Research Design .....................................................................................................50
3.2.1
Qualitative Inquiry ....................................................................................................51
3.2.2
Critiques on Qualitative Inquiry ................................................................................53
3.2.3
Quantitative Inquiry ..................................................................................................53
3.2.4
Critiques of Quantitative Inquiry ...............................................................................54
viii
3.2.5
3.3
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods ...........................................55
Data Collection and Research Methods ...................................................................56
3.3.1
Purposeful Sampling................................................................................................57
3.3.2
Research Participants Engagement .........................................................................58
3.3.3
Focus Group Interview .............................................................................................59
3.3.4
Survey Questionnaire ..............................................................................................61
3.3.5
Follow-up Phone Interview.......................................................................................65
3.4
Data Collection Process...........................................................................................65
3.4.1
Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................65
3.4.2
Focus-group Interview and Qualitative Questionnaire Survey, and Follow-up Phone
Interview Processes.................................................................................................66
3.4.3
Credibility and Trustworthiness of the Study ............................................................67
3.4.4
Data Analysis and Interpretation ..............................................................................68
3.5
Summary .................................................................................................................70
4.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS .....................................................................................72
4.1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................72
4.1.1
Review of Research Design and Methodology.........................................................72
4.1.2
Review of Stages of Data Collection ........................................................................73
4.2
Overview of Data Analysis .......................................................................................74
4.3
Focus-Groups Composition .....................................................................................76
4.4
Participants’ Demographics Data .............................................................................80
4.4.1
Distributions - by Participant Category, Age and Gender .........................................80
4.4.2
Distribution - by Study Mode and Study Major .........................................................82
4.4.3
Distribution - by Previous Ethics Study ....................................................................83
4.4.4
Summary .................................................................................................................84
4.5
Responses/Views from Focus-Groups .....................................................................85
ix
4.5.1.1 Part I - Question 1....................................................................................................86
4.5.1.1.1
Data and Analysis ............................................................................................86
4.5.1.1.2
Results Summary .............................................................................................90
4.5.1.2 Part I - Question 2....................................................................................................91
4.5.1.2.1
Data and Analysis ............................................................................................91
4.5.1.2.2
Results Summary .............................................................................................95
4.5.1.3 Part I - Question 3....................................................................................................96
4.5.1.3.1
Data and Analysis ............................................................................................96
4.5.1.3.2
Results Summary ...........................................................................................100
4.5.1.4 Part I - Question 4..................................................................................................101
4.5.1.4.1
Data and Analysis ..........................................................................................101
4.5.1.4.2
Results Summary ...........................................................................................104
4.5.1.5 Part I - Question 5(a) (Question 1 vs. Question 3) .................................................105
4.5.1.5.1
Data and Analysis ..........................................................................................105
4.5.1.5.2
Results Summary ...........................................................................................107
4.5.1.6 Part I - Question 5(b) (Question 2 vs. Question 4) .................................................107
4.5.1.6.1
Data and Analysis ..........................................................................................107
4.5.1.6.2
Results Summary ...........................................................................................108
4.5.2
Part II - CSRO-Perception Ratings of the 7 Companies .........................................109
4.5.2.1
Data and Analysis ..........................................................................................110
4.5.2.2 Part II - Reasons behind the CSRO-Perception Ratings ........................................113
4.5.2.2.1
Data and Analysis ..........................................................................................113
4.5.2.2.2
Good/Bad Differentiating CSR Organizational Attributes ................................113
4.5.2.2.3
Results Summary ...........................................................................................116
4.5.3
Part III - Participants’ CSRO-Importance Weightings of the 10 sets of CSR ..........118
Statements ..........................................................................................................................118
x
4.5.3.1
Data and Analysis ..........................................................................................118
4.5.3.2
Results Summary ...........................................................................................121
4.5.4
4.6
Summary of Focus-Group Interviews .....................................................................122
Responses from Phone-Interviews: Actual Employment Decisions ........................124
4.6.1
Data and Analysis ..................................................................................................124
4.6.2
Results Summary ..................................................................................................127
4.7
Summary of Findings and Analyses .......................................................................128
4.7.1
Thematic Framework for Analysis of Views Received ............................................128
4.7.2
Theme 1 — Students’ CSRO .................................................................................129
4.7.3
Theme 2 — EA Influencing Factors .......................................................................129
4.7.4
Theme 3 — Actual Employment Decision Factors .................................................130
5.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...........................................................................131
5.1
Conclusions about the Research Questions ..........................................................131
5.1.1
Research Question One and Question Two ...........................................................131
5.1.2
Research Question 3 .............................................................................................133
5.1.3
Research Question 4 .............................................................................................133
5.1.4
Initial Conclusion ...................................................................................................135
5.2
Interpretations and Contribution to Knowledge ......................................................136
5.2.1
Interpretation One ..................................................................................................137
5.2.2
Interpretation Two ..................................................................................................139
5.3
Implications for Practice .........................................................................................140
5.3.1
Interpretation One ..................................................................................................140
5.3.2
Interpretation Two ..................................................................................................143
5.3.3
Interpretations One and Two .................................................................................145
5.5
Reflection on Methodology ....................................................................................148
5.6
Limitation of the Study ...........................................................................................149
xi
5.7
Future Research ....................................................................................................150
5.8
Reflection Statement .............................................................................................151
References ..........................................................................................................................152
Appendices ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix A .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix B .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix C .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix D .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix E .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
xii
List of Tables
Page
Table 1
Adapted CSR Research Instrument - 10 sets of 4 CSR statements
(Aupperle, 1982, 1984)
64
Table 2
Focus Groups distribution - overview
77
Table 3
Focus Groups distribution - by study major/previous ethics study
78
Table 4
Demographics of participants - by category
80
Table 5
Distribution of participants - by age
81
Table 6
Distribution of participants - by gender
81
Table 7
Distribution of participants - by study mode
82
Table 8
Distribution of participants - by study major
83
Table 9
Distribution of participants - by previous ethics study
84
Table 10
Part I – Question 1
89
Table 11
Part I – Question 2
93
Table 12
Part I – Question 3
98
Table 13
Part I – Question 4
102
Table 14
Part II - CSRO-Perception ratings of the 7 Companies
110
Table 15
Part III - Participants’ CSRO-Importance weightings of the 10 sets
of CSR statements
118
Table 16
Responses from Phone-Interviews : actual employment decisions
125
Table 17
Thematic Framework for Analysis of Views Received
128
xiii
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1
Carroll’s framework for a corporation’s total social responsibilities
(1979)
21
Figure 2
The pyramid of total CSR (Carroll, 1991a)
22
Figure 3
The 3-Domain Model of CSR (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003)
27
Figure 4
Conceptual Framework for the research
48
Figure 5
Parent Nodes in NVivo 9 (Appendix E)
183
Figure 6
Parent and Child Nodes in NVivo 9 (partial view) (Appendix E)
184
Figure 7
Distribution of participants – by age (Appendix E)
185
Figure 8
Gender distribution (Appendix E)
185
Figure 9
Distribution of male respondents (Appendix E)
186
Figure 10
Distribution of female respondents (Appendix E)
186
Figure 11
Gender distribution – full-time study (Appendix E)
187
Figure 12
Gender distribution – part-time study (Appendix E)
187
Figure 13
Study majors of participants (Appendix E)
188
Figure 14
Ethics study among participants (Appendix E)
188
Figure 15
Desirable Org. to work for (under actual situation)
Figure 16
Undesirable Org. to work for (under actual situation)
104
Figure 17
Participants’ overall average CSRO-Perception ratings
112
Figure 18
Participants’ overall average CSRO-Perception ratings (across
Cats.)
112
Figure 19
Modified Carroll’s framework for a corporation’s Total Social
Responsibilities (1979, 1991a)
117
Figure 20
Participants’ overall average CSRO-Importance ratings
120
Figure 21
CSRO-Importance average ratings (across Cats.)
121
Figure 22
Actual Organizations applied for employment
127
xiv
95
Glossary of Definitions/Abbreviations
CSP (‘corporate social performance’)
“Corporate social performance requires that (1) a firm’s social responsibilities be assessed, (2) the
social issues it must address be identified, and (3) a response philosophy be chosen.” (Carroll, 1979)
CSR (‘corporate social responsibility’)
CSR consists of 4 domains or faces of a corporate citizen (economic, legal, ethical, discretionary),
showing the responsibilities that society expects businesses to assume. It suggests motivation and
is not measurable (Carroll, 1979). Social responsibility is defined as organizational leaders’
perceptions of the obligations to consider the effects of their decisions and actions on the whole
social system (Carroll, 1999b).
CSRO (‘corporate social responsibility orientation’)
A construct that captures the perception that stakeholders have pertaining to an organization’s social
responsibility and performance (Smith et al., 2001)
EA (‘employer attractiveness’)
It is a dependent variable, a function of an array of independent variables which could include the
organization’s reputation or image (Belt and Paolillo, 1982), social responsibility (Backhaus et al.,
2002; Mercer, 2003); values and objectives, recruitment and workforce development strategies; job
applicants’ status (Greening and Turban, 2000; Kraft and Singhapakdi, 1995), gender (Kraft, 1991),
familiarity with the organization, personal values, religion (Anderson, 1989; Angelidis and Ibrahim,
2004; Thompson and Hood, 1993), culture and diversity, geographical location (Turban and Keon,
1993), internal management structure (Greenhaus et al., 1978), leadership style (Schneider, 1987),
organizational attributes (Turban et al., 1998) and CSRO.
MNC (‘multi-national corporations’)
A multinational corporation (MNC) or multinational enterprise (MNE) (1) is a corporation that is
registered in more than one country or that has operations in more than one country. It is a large
corporation which both produces and sells goods or services in various countries. (2) It can also be
referred to as an international corporation. They play an important role in globalization. (Wikipedia,
accessed on 28 January 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_corporation)
Public-listed company
A public company, publicly traded company, publicly held company or public limited company (in the
United Kingdom) is a limited liability company that offers its securities (stock/shares, bonds/loans,
etc.) for sale to the general public, typically through a stock exchange, or through market makers
operating in over the counter markets. Public companies, including public limited companies, can be
either unlisted or listed on a stock exchange depending on their size and local legislation. (Wikipedia,
accessed on 28 January 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company)
xv
1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Significance of the Study
Attracting the best recruits seems to be the prime and recurrent concern of organizations,
this attraction process is a vital one as a prelude to subsequent recruitment, training, workforce
development and retention. Simultaneously, at the other side of this process, job applicants also
try to identify desirable organizations to apply to. A good alignment between these two aspects
can create a win-win situation for both parties. In reality, achieving a good alignment can be
difficult, undermined by a lot of complexity and issues which are still not fully known to each
party.
In employment decisions, among applicants’ consideration can be a variety of factors,
such as the company’s products, the fashionableness of an industry and trends, organizational
scale of operations, organizational culture, organizational reputation and image, and even its
corporate social responsibilities (‘CSR’), which applicants may perceive as important. In recent
years, CSR has been increasingly regarded as important by both employers and employees.
Hence it is possible that the CSR standards of an organization may influence how the
organization is going to be perceived by its stakeholders, among them being its potential job
applicants. It is job applicants’ corporate social responsibility orientation (‘CSRO’) which
determines how they perceive an organization as social responsible.
Hong Kong, one of the financial hubs in the Far East and a gateway to Mainland China,
has a population of some seven millions; the figure is on the rising trend. Among the population,
Chinese makes up the majority and the remaining portion is a mix of people of different
nationalities. The past 100 years of history reveals that people in Hong Kong have been
1
continuously subject to influences from foreign countries mainly through internationalization and
globalization of business activities. Global and multi-national corporations (‘MNC’) have a long
and firm standing in Hong Kong. This social-cultural environment provides an interesting context
within which to explore the relationship between CSRO and employer-attractiveness (‘EA’) in
Hong Kong’s graduate labour market. That is the objective and topic of the present research.
Since about six decades ago, attention to CSR has increased (Albinger & Freeman,
2000; Angelidis & Ibrahim, 2004; Backhaus, Stone & Heiner, 2002; Bowen, 1953; Carroll, 1979;
Carroll, 1991a; Carroll, 2000b; Clarkson, 1998; Greening & Turban, 2000; Higgins, 2001; Wood,
1991). Some organizations consider CSR as a moral thing to do (Luce et al., 2001; Makower,
1994), while others perceive it as a business necessity in the context of business performance
and community expectations (Barnard, 1938; Bowen 1953; Webb & Mohr, 1998).
Previous research indicates that reactions to organizations’ CSR have implications for
employers, especially under tight labour conditions (Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Lievens &
Highhouse, 2003). Related research was done (Aupperle,1982, 1984; Aupperle et al., 1985) on
managers to identify their espoused values and/or actual behaviours they considered to be
socially responsible. On individual value orientation on workforce development, there has been
much research (Alderfer & McCord, 1970; Judge & Bretz, 1992; McGinty & Reitsch, 1992). Also
studies have been done on employer CSR behaviours and workforce development behaviors
such as recruiting, employee satisfaction, and commitment (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Koys,
2001; Peterson, 2004a; Turban & Greening, 1996, 1997). Hence, while there is an interest in
understanding the connections between CSR and implications for employees, there is less
research to date on the connection between perceived CSR of organisations and implications
for potential employees. This is potentially a significant area when it comes to planning for
recruitment and selection.
2
CSRO in previous research (Angelidis & Ibrahim, 2004; Aupperle, 1991) did not agree
on a common definition. Aupperle (1982) used Carroll’s (1979) 4-domain framework to construct
an instrument to measure CSRO. CSRO is defined (Smith et al., 2001) as a construct that
captures the perception that stakeholders have pertaining to an organization’s social
responsibility and performance. Some previous research (predominantly in Anglo-Saxon
contexts) was based on Carroll’s (1979) construct and/or Aupperle’s (1982) CSRO
measurement tool. For example, Ray (2006) has done similar research to the present study,
but under a different social-cultural context and with different research methods.
This study aims to contribute to existing research on the relationship between CSRO
and EA in two main ways: to address the empirical gap in knowledge on the relationship
between undergraduate students’ CSRO and EA in Hong Kong’s graduate labour market, and
to be informative both for human resource management theory and for practice in organizations
where there is a debate over whether, and how, they should pursue a CSR agenda. Thus this
study was directed by the following four research questions.
1.2
Research Questions
Question 1
What attributes/factors would undergraduate students (having taken an ethics course)
use to differentiate between a good CSR and a bad CSR organization?
Question 2
What attributes/factors would undergraduate students (not having taken an ethics course)
use to differentiate between a good CSR and a bad CSR organization?
3
Question 3
Do undergraduate students make sense in a segregated way (based on Carroll’s 1979
and 1991a model) or in a hybrid way (based on Schwartz and Carroll’s 2003 model), or
in some other ways when making either negative or positive employment-choice
decisions?
Question 4
Are undergraduate students’ CSRO (espoused values) in congruence with what
students are actually doing (values in use) in their employer-choice process in the Hong
Kong graduate labour market? What insights into the sense-making of students
regarding CSR values and employer choice can be derived?
1.3
Research Methodology
This study adopted a qualitative approach as the primary one, supplemented by a
quantitative one. A focus-group interview approach was used, supplemented by a questionnaire
survey and a post focus-group phone-interview (with individual focus-group members). The
research is essentially constructionist, but incorporates a questionnaire survey. The purpose of
this arrangement is to discover what people do (description) and part is to analyse what sensemaking they are doing and how they construct their value positions.
Stratified purposeful sampling was used and there were 97 participants, all
undergraduate students at a tertiary institution in Hong Kong, at which the researcher has
worked for over 13 years in teaching and programme-management. For data analysis purpose,
the participants were classified into 6 categories, the differentiating variables being previous
ethics-study, study major and study mode.
4
Using content analysis and inductive analysis, audio-taped focus-group discussions
were transcribed verbatim in Chinese; then coding was conducted before translating into
English selected coded transcripts of participants’ direct quotes or key/relevant views and
responses identified in the transcriptions; followed by categorizing, coding data and inputting
them into NVivo 9 software. Quantitative analyses were also used to identify meaningful
relationships or comparisons among different variables in the data. Results were compared with
those from the qualitative analyses. Thereby emerged themes and categories and subcategories were identified.
1.4
Chapter Outline
This thesis comprises five main chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction — this chapter introduces the significance of the study,
objectives of the research, the research questions, the research methodology, and the
outline of the thesis.
Chapter 2: Literature — this chapter reviews relevant research, providing a framework
for this research, and demonstrates the need for this study. It also serves to establish
where the present research fits in relation to previous research and identify/establish
what the important issues are.
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology — this chapter provides the background
on the research paradigm and the data collection process. The research ethics
underpinning are also presented.
5
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis — this chapter details the data analyses and findings
and discussions, segmented according to the stages in focus-group interviews and
phone-interviews.
Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusion — this chapter draws conclusion about the
research questions, based on the insights derived from the literature review and findings.
Implications and interpretations from the findings, contribution to knowledge, reflection
on the methodology, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research are
elaborated. The thesis concludes with a personal reflective statement on the process of
the study.
6
2.
2.1
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
2.1.1 The Problem
A perennial issue for companies is the need to attract the best recruits they can. A
variety of factors, such as the company’s products, the fashionableness of an industry and
trends in what recruits regard as important, can have an impact on how easy it is for companies
to attract the best candidates. In recent years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been
increasingly regarded as important by both employers and employees. Ecological and social
awareness, in addition to being serious ethical matters, may also act as trends in what is
regarded as important by candidates, and hence it is possible that the CSR standards of a
company may influence how they are perceived. Reactions to organizations’ CSR have
implications for employers, especially under tight labour conditions (Albinger and Freeman,
2000; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). The proposed research explores relationships, if any,
between the Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation (‘CSRO’) of undergraduate students in
their senior years (full-time and part-time students) and Employer Attractiveness (‘EA’) in Hong
Kong’s graduate labour market. It also explores whether students’ CSRO would influence
employment decisions towards organizations which have exhibited various extents and types of
socially responsible behaviors. The outcomes of the research could be informative both for
human resource management theory and for practice in organisations where there is a debate
over whether, and how, they should pursue a CSR agenda.
7
2.1.2 Context of the Problem
The research is intended to be carried out with undergraduate students in Hong Kong, a
city where East meets West, having undergone substantial changes in many aspects from a
previous British Colony for nearly 100 years to the present state as the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region of The People’s Republic of China.
Prior research has been done on this or related research topics, however, to date
research has been conducted in the context of western countries. Students’ CSRO, mainly in
the Anglo-Saxon culture contexts, and relationships with different backgrounds or variables
have been identified (Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2002; Angelidis et. al., 2008; Burton et al., 2000;
Heslin and Ochoa, 2008; Ibrahim et al., 2006; Luce et al., 2001; McGinty and Reitsch, 1992;
Ray, 2006; Smith et al., 2001). Results generally show an organization’s Corporate Social
Performance (‘CSP’) does influence people’s positive perception toward the organization.
However, there is little research on senior-year undergraduates’ CSRO and EA relationship, and
the context of Hong Kong has to date been under-researched.
Hong Kong is unique, having been subject to mixed influences from the East and West
for the past 100 years. At the current time, Hong Kong is one of the financial centres in the Far
East, with many multinational companies from the West as well as from Mainland China setting
up their regional headquarters there. Therefore it is an interesting cultural context within which
to explore the said relationship between value-based judgments and intentions. The research
could add to current theories on human resource management policies and the attractiveness of
the company to potential candidates, and in particular, could add insights based on a cultural
context that to date is under-researched.
8
2.1.3 Practical Importance of the Research
This research can be useful to employers both in attracting the best possible candidates
and in getting a better organization-person fit through developing their CSR policies and
behaviors such that they attract candidates of CSROs that fit with the organizational aspirations.
Organizations may then use the research results to select employees with orientations that are
in alignment with their business practices to create better organization-person fit. With workforce
recruitment and development as one of the strategic competitive issues for an organization,
results from the research can contribute towards this end (Backhaus et al., 2002; Cable and
Judge, 1994,1996; Drucker, 1953; Freeman, 1984; Judge and Bretz, 1992; Kim et al., 2010;
Kristof, 1996; Schwartz et al., 1990; Turban and Dougherty, 1992; Turban and Keon, 1993;
Turban et al., 1998; Vitaliano, 2010).
The research findings will also be beneficial to the academic community in large. In
Hong Kong, apart from local tertiary education institutions, there are a large number of overseas
educational institutions offering programmes in collaboration with operators in Hong Kong. The
programmes on offer carry different levels of local contextualization in course materials. With
the research findings, both the local and overseas institutions can better adapt to, integrate with
and assimilate into, their curricula the relationship between CSRO and EA in Hong Kong’s
graduate labour market, while retaining their programmes’ characteristics. Henceforth, potential
graduates can not only enhance their employability through better understanding the said
relationship between CSRO and EA, but also enable them to make informed decisions about
the type of company that they would be most suited for. Recruiters will benefit from this
research too, especially those international or global organizations who are in search of local
talents. The research results can make them better understand how to achieve a good
employee-organization fit, a win-win situation, and how best to communicate with the potential
9
candidates who would be most likely to fit with, and enhance, the CSR culture of the
organzation.
There has been growing evidence that companies or organizations have engaged, on
various scales and degrees, in activities other than those just economic in nature. These
activities form part of the organizations’ strategies, a kind of strategic business investment. This
has been the case for over a decade as, for example, Kanter (1999) observes “today several
leading companies are beginning to find inspiration in an unexpected place: the social sector —
in public schools, welfare-to-work programs, and the inner city” and “companies view community
needs as opportunities to develop ideas, serve new markets, and solve long-standing business
problems.”
More recently, Arthaud-Day (2005) reported there had been a poll of 25,000 citizens in
23 countries; its results showed public impressions of a company have been increasingly being
influenced by its corporate social citizenship. Positive organizational values can be achieved
through the organization’s corporate social performance (‘CSP’) which can contribute positively
to the attraction, retention and motivation of employees (Peterson, 2004b). Greening and
Turban (2000) conducted an experiment and found that prospective job applicants are more
likely to pursue jobs from social responsible firms. Under tight labour market conditions,
organizations should manage their reputations to have greater access to highly skilled
employees (Lemmink et al., 2003; Puncheva-Michelotti, 2009).
On the business side, investing and promoting an organization’s CSR can also help
attract customers. Customers may be positively or negatively influenced by an organization’s
CSR (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). CSR organizations can stand out among non-CSR
competitors (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Turban and Greening,
10
1996). Not only that, these CSR organizations can also leverage their enhanced reputations to
achieve a competitive advantage (Albinger and Freeman, 2000).
In order to study the research question, there is a need to understand the conceptual
development and definitions of and research on CSR; conceptual development of CSRO, its
measurement tool and relationships with organizational stakeholders; factors influencing EA,
particularly in relation to students’ CSRO.
2.2
Conceptual Development of CSR
2.2.1 History and Evolution
Centuries old countries like China, Babylonia, Greece and Egypt have records of socially
responsible behaviours of organizations (Eberstadt, 1973; Anderson, 1989). Anderson’s (1989)
research reveals ‘giving back to society’ activities dating back to 5000 B.C. Western countries
have stood out in pioneering the CSR movement. In the US, after the Great Depression, not
only have the governments been the main target for the public demanding ways to resolve
societal issues and problems, business organizations have also become an alternative target
(Barnard, 1938; Bartel, 2001; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Davis, 1973; Holliday, 2002).
New social issues thus arise in the relationship among society, organizations and
individuals, triggering the emergence of CSR. Bowen (1953) as a start puts forward a definition
of businessmen’s social responsibilities, they are referred to 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 of our society”. He considers the terms ‘public responsibility’
and ‘social obligations’ and ‘business morality’ are synonyms of CSR.
11
With the influence by work of Howard Bowen (1953), formal literature on CSR developed
around the mid-20th century (Carroll, 1999b). It had been CEOs who advocated CSR, with no
particular emphasis on the bottom line of the organizations, mainly to serve and give back to
society (Agle and Caldwell, 1999; Buchholtz et al., 1999; Campbell et al., 1999; Hutton et al.,
1998; Ibrahim et al., 2000). It is mainly because the personal values of the corporate decisionmakers have played a vital role and that the CSR activities pursued are in alignment with their
personal values.
As time went by, CSR has been conceived as a tool able to create a win-win situation for
both society and organizations, creating good corporate reputation and image and bringing in
more business and profits consequently (Campbell et al., 1999; Kanter, 1999; KPMG, 2008; Yu,
2003). It was suggested that partnerships can be established between organizations and social
sectors, creating opportunities (Swanson, 1995). Taking up CSR has become part of an
organization’s objectives and reflected in their strategies (Campbell et al., 1999; Hanke and
Stark, 2009; Holliday, 2002; Silberhorn and Warren, 2007).
The rise in prominence of various stakeholder groups has been the complementary
contributing factor to organizations paying more attention to CSR (Holliday, 2002). These
stakeholder groups have found that on some occasions some organizations are even more
powerful and influential than the country governments in which they operate; demanding more
inputs from these organizations which hitherto were provided at the government level may be
easier (Burton and Hegarty, 1999; Holliday, 2002; Wood, 1991). CSR’s importance in the
modern corporate world has further been elevated through the corporate scandals such as
ENRON, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Adelphia, and Xerox (Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2002;
Ibrahim et al., 2007).
12
Many writers have researched the long history of CSR, there have been debates
between academics and practitioners (Anderson, 1989; Carroll, 1999a,1999b; Eberstadt, 1973;
Mercer, 2003; Ray, 2006). Most of the previous research was about the relationship between
CSR activities and corporate financial performance.
The previous studies on CSR, mainly at the domestic level (i.e. intra-country level), have
been informative, and yet have neglected some parts of the global economy. Arthaud-Day
(2005) considers “the ‘new economic order’ brought on by rapid improvements in
telecommunications, decreases in trade barriers, and increases in knowledge transfer, suggests
the need for a new understanding of the social responsibility of businesses in an international
context”. In academia, AACSB (2004) recommends that future managers also receive education
in CSR and has it incorporated into school curricula.
The CSR concept has evolved from organizational through country to international levels,
receiving more and more attention from various stakeholder groups. Its interpretation can vary
according to the passage of time, geographical locations, cultural norms, external and internal
environmental changes.
There has been an increasing volume of research on CSR. It includes efforts to
determine whether organizations are socially responsible and there are any likely impacts on
stakeholders (Carroll, 1991a); whether organizations have good corporate citizenship (Carroll,
1998; Davenport, 2000; Rowley and Berman, 2000); role of organizations in society (Carroll,
1991a; Davenport, 2000; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Sanchez, 2000); even the existence of
CSR (Agle and Kelley, 2001; Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Davenport, 2000; Ibrahim et al.,
2000; Koys, 2001; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Different models have emerged trying to
define and measure the CSR concept, building on the previous ones (Agle and Caldwell, 1999;
Carroll, 1991a, 1991b, 1998; Hutton et al., 1998; Rowley and Berman, 2000).
13
Wartick and Cochran (1985) recast Carroll’s (1979) CSP model into a framework of
principles, processes, and policies, by arguing that the ‘social responsibility’ used by Carroll
should be thought of as ‘principles’. They consider the resulting CSP model more robust and
logical. Wood (1991) considers CSP can be used to evaluate how well organizations are
meeting their CSR which itself is a relational concept, “it is the area of CSP that organizations
can be compared to one another on how well each is meeting its social responsibilities”. She
adds that managers can operate within the 4 domains (i.e. economic, legal, ethical, and
discretionary or referred to as philanthropic) to discharge an organization’s CSR to its
stakeholders.
CSR has also been studied from a strategy development perspective (Hanke and Stark,
2009). The framework is based on the considerations on legitimation and sense-making/sensegiving in organizations, particularly in response to inconsistencies within the economic system
(profit orientation vs. common welfare).
Silberhorn and Warren (2007) suggest CSR is a normative, multi-level concept, its
meaning changes with different perspectives and relationships, and in response to social trends.
A comparative empirical study on how large German and British companies publicly define CSR
and why and how the respective notion of CSR was developed. The study concludes CSR and
business strategy are in in positive alignment, making business and CSR integration across the
company the norm in future. However, because of the different CSR definitions, difficulty still
exists in identifying which organizations express their CSR and to what extent (Agle and
Caldwell, 1999; Carroll, 1999b; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001).
In the next section, the researcher will develop a definition drawing on the literature
referred to above.
14
2.2.2 Conceputalization and Definitions
A commonly accepted definition has not been developed mainly because when external
environmental factors change, so will the different perceptions and expectations of CSR,
coupled with the different cultural contexts.
There have been different definitions and concepts of, and debates on, CSR in previous
research looking from different perspectives and under various contexts (Anderson, 1989;
McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Sauser Jr., 2005). Defining CSR has been illusive (Ray, 2006),
some consider it as always changing (Holliday, 2002), some as just a fad (Henderson, 2001),
some as the identification of who are the givers and who are beneficiaries, some as just doing
more than what is required by law (Buhmann, 2006). Most of them revolve around the notion
that organizations should consider and respond to issues beyond the narrow economic and
legal requirements (Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Bowen, 1953; Committee for Economic
Development, 1971; Davis, 1973; Walton, 1967).
Some approaches have emphasized management discretion and prerogative. Davis
(1960) defines CSR as “businessmen’s decisions and actions taken for reasons at least partially
beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical interest”. He considers organizations taking up
social responsibilities will gain social power consequently. While Walton (1967) suggests CSR is
a kind of voluntary act through which managers may not generate any direct measurable
economic returns. The Committee for Economic Development (1971) issued a major report
urging business leaders to contribute to society beyond the level of economic domain. The
report observed that “business functions by public consent and its basic purpose is to serve
constructively the needs of society — to the satisfaction of society”, also “corporations are also
expected to behave in accordance with social customs, high moral standards, and humane
values”.
15
Ackerman considers (1975) CSR the management of discretion, it does not refer to
philanthropy or community involvement programmes, but to the discretion in management
actions and choices. Jones (1980) instead looks at CSR as a process or means, not a set of
outcomes or ends. His views are “CSR is a form of self-control which involves elements of
normative constraint, altruistic incentive and moral imperative in the quest for corporate social
nirvana. Perhaps its greatest virtue is that its adoption requires no extension of government”.
Some interpret CSR as a multi-dimensional concept, encompassing community
investment, diversity support, workforce development, environmental awareness and other
issues (Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Epstein, 1987). According to Ray (2006), “concept of
social responsibility recognizes the intimate relationship between the corporation and the
society. Their respective goals better being met as they “partner” and “the quality of the
workforce is increasingly becoming a competitive multiplier”. Jones (1980) emphasizes CSR
ought to be considered as a process not as a set of ends. To give practical meanings to the
CSR concept and from a management point of view, some research has combined factors from
an organization’s external and internal environment in a holistic manner (Kok et al., 2001;
Waddock et al., 2002), while Hanke and Stark (2009) have developed a strategy developmentconceptual framework on CSR with considerations of legitimation and sensemaking/sensegiving
in companies. O’Higgins (2009) offers a descriptive conceptual framework with respect to CSR,
grounded in instrumental and normative stakeholder theory.
Based on the literature reviewed, the researcher considers CSR is a concept based on
which organizations continuously commit to behave responsibly towards various stakeholders
and society at large.
16
Among the previous research, there have been arguments for and against CSR and
these have influenced both the theoretical understanding of the field and practical stances
adopted by companies
2.2.3 Arguments For and Against CSR
2.2.3.1
Arguments for CSR
On most occasions, the strongest argument for those favouring CSR stems from the
belief organizations should meet ethical and discretionary needs instead of just maximizing
profits, and beneficiaries of organization’s business results should not only be confined to
shareholders but stakeholders as well (Carroll, 1999b, 2000b; Davenport, 2000; Freeman, 1984;
McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Shaw and Barry, 1992).
In the business sector, Drucker (1984) considers CSR can turn a social problem into
economic opportunity and create wealth. Singh et al. (2007) reflect businesses have seen the
importance of CSR through the forms of numerous initiatives, forums and associations in the
public and private sector environments. For example, KPMG’s (2008) survey reveals a
significant finding that corporate responsibility reporting has gone mainstream — nearly 80% of
the largest 250 companies worldwide issued reports, up from about 50% in 2005; with threequarters of these companies having a corporate responsibility strategy which include defined
objectives. In the academic sector, AACSB (2004) reported “academic instruction in ethical
principles has become so important to the corporate business community that such instruction is
now considered part of an overall strategy to promote its own survival”.
Also, empirical research shows pursuing CSR can also generate more business
opportunities (Asmus, 2003; Kanter, 1999), increase revenue and profits (Aupperle et al., 1985;
Maignan and Ferrell, 1999, 2001; Marz et al, 2003; Peterson, 2004a; Waddock et al., 2002);
17
enhance product marketing (Yu, 2003), enhance corporate image and reputation (Arthaud-Day,
2005; Wood and Jones, 1995); improve customer perceptions (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001;
Singh et al., 2007); employee relations (Koys, 2001); more able to recruit talents in alignment
with organization’s objectives (Backhaus et al., 2002; Greening and Turban, 2000; Harrison and
Freeman, 1999; Maignan and Ferrell, 1999; Porter and Kramer, 1999; Sen and Bhattacharya,
2001).
Society generally has a conception that business organizations should plough back
some resources they have accumulated back to society from which the organizations have
obtained, in the form of contributions, jobs, education and environmental protection etc. Coupled
with the increasing size and influence of business organizations, their CSR activities can fill up
the gaps left by government, and do them in a more timely and efficient manner (Sanchez,
2000).
2.2.3.2
Arguments against CSR
Arguments dated back to more than half a century ago, mainly on the ill-defined nature
of the construct, improper appropriation of shareholders’ money for this purpose, and difficulty in
implementation.
Friedman (1962) contends that ‘few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very
foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility
other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible”. He (1970) also considers
CSR a costly move and managers have no right to use shareholders’ money on such
unprofitable moves. Anderson (1989) found there had been conflicts of interest between
businesses and stakeholders.
18
Manne and Wallich (1972) comment on the great practical difficulty in classifying
corporate activities and determining the real motive behind a business expenditure. Friedman
(1970) comments that CSR is loose in analysis and lack of rigor; business as a whole cannot be
said to have responsibilities; if a corporate executive acts in a socially responsible manner,
he/she actually is spending shareholders’ money for a general social interest.
Other criticisms include: CSR as a construct is ill-defined, can mean all things to all
people (Preston and Post, 1975; Sethi, 1975); vague meaning can harm the foundations of a
free society (Johnson, 1971); corporate charters limit corporate behavior and managers not
trained to pursue CSR activities, CSR pursuance is kind of theft-like action (Jones, 1980;
Meehan et al., 2006); corporations are not moral agents, only corporate controllers can be
socially responsible (Ranker, 1987); lack of a comprehensive framework (Clarkson, 1995);
failure in operationalizing the responsibilities (Waddock, 2004). Some of the arguments include:
profits imply socially preferred behavior; the law prevents corporations from engaging in social
responsible behaviours; reducing stockholder equity equates to theft etc. (Jones, 1980).
In the midst of this debate, Carroll developed a model which sought to lay a sound
foundation for the pro-CSR approach to business, and this will be examined in the next section.
2.2.4 Carroll’s 4-Domain CSR Model
As noted above, there had been a lack of consensus on what the CSR concept really
means (Carroll, 1979, 1991a, 2000a). However, Carroll’s 4-domain framework/model of total
organizational CSR (1979, 1991a) has generally been accepted in management and social
research. Carroll (1979) laid out the first conceptual model of corporate social performance
(‘CSP’) and it has been considered as one of the most encompassing. Based on the CSP model,
he (1979) operationalizes CSR by specifying it as consisting of four domains or faces of a
19
corporate citizen (economic, legal, ethical, discretionary), showing the responsibilities that
society expects businesses to assume.
The CSP model from which Carroll (1979) derives his CSR model consists of CSR
categories, social issues involved, and philosophy of social responsiveness. He argues
‘responsibility’ suggests motivation and is not measurable, whereas ‘performance’ is the
operative term.
The conceptual model is in the form of a tall rectangle (1979) and/or a pyramid (1991a),
shown respectively at Figure 1 and Figure 2. The layers or domains or categories in the
rectangle and pyramid are mutually non-exclusive, reflecting the respective responsibilities in
decreasing order of implied attention, not importance. He (1979) considers these four domains
neither cumulative nor additive; the different domain sizes in either rectangular or pyramidal
shape reflect ‘relative magnitude’ and an order of evolution; any given responsibility or action of
business could have economic, legal, ethical, or discretionary motives embodied in it. The
dotted lines in the rectangle in Figure 1 suggest the four responsibilities must be met
simultaneously (Carroll, 1979).
Carroll (1991a) considers a CSR firm, or for CSR to be accepted as legitimate, should
strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen. The pyramid of
CSR enables managers to see that the different types of obligations are in a constant but
dynamic tension with each other, thus helping them make decisions which fulfill all its
components at the same time.
20
Figure 1
Carroll’s framework for a corporation’s total social responsibilities (1979)
Discretionary responsibilities
Ethical responsibilities
Legal responsibilities
Economic responsibilities
21
Figure 2
The pyramid of total corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 1991a)
In Carroll’s (1979, 1991a) model/framework, he defines CSR as the ways organizations
can meet the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary needs/expectations of their
stakeholders in society. Carroll (1998) refers these as the four faces (components) of a
corporate citizen, suggesting that organizations which can be considered socially responsible
must meet society’s needs as reflected through these four faces. Carroll (1991a) later changed
the ‘discretionary’ responsibility to ‘philanthropic’ responsibility. There has been support of the
22
view that CSR is a contingent construct influenced by circumstances and the actors involved
(Carroll, 1979, 1991a; Smith et al., 2001).
Explanations and views/comments on the four responsibilities are as below:
2.2.4.1
Economic Responsibilities
This responsibility is the first and foremost for a business. The business institution is the
basic economic unit in society. It has a responsibility to produce goods and services that society
wants and to sell them at a profit. All other business roles are predicated on this fundamental
assumption (Carroll, 1979). Some characteristics of this responsibility include: maximizing
earnings per share; maximizing and sustaining profitability; strong competitive position; high
level of operating efficiency (Carroll, 1991a).
Aupperle (1982) also considers that organizations, if not economically viable, cannot be
expected to be good social performers.
2.2.4.2
Legal Responsibilities
Though allowed to take up a productive role in the economic system as sanctioned in
society, businesses are expected to operate subject to certain ground rules, i.e. laws and
regulations, while fulfilling their economic mission and not harming others, as a partial fulfillment
of the “social contract” (Carroll, 1979; Eberstadt, 1973; Ostas, 2004; Rose, 2006). Carroll
(1991a) puts down some characteristics of this type of responsibility: performing consistent with
expectations of government and law; be a law-abiding corporate citizen; producing goods at
least meeting minimum legal requirements.
A law-abiding organization and its management can give the public a social responsible
perception (Davis, 1973).
23
2.4.2.3
Ethical Responsibilities
There are additional behaviors and activities that are not necessarily codified into law but
nevertheless are expected of business by society’s members. These ethical behaviors are illdefined, yet society has expectations of business over and above legal requirements. However,
there has been continuing debates on what is and is not ethical (Carroll, 1979).
Carroll (2000b) considers “ethical responsibilities embrace a range of norms, standards,
or expectations of behavior that reflect a concern for what consumers, employees, shareholders,
the community, and other stakeholders regard as fair, right, just, or in keeping with stakeholders’
moral rights or legitimate expectations”.
Davenport (2000) argues organizations can meet these needs as if by adhering to a set
of ‘rigorous standards’. Actually meeting ethical standards by organizations has long been
recognized as important for corporate sustainability and survival, for example, after outbreaks of
ethical failing and questionable or abusive practices by corporations, executives, and corporate
directors (Kok et al., 2001; Stone et al., 2006);
2.2.4.4
Discretionary or Philanthropic Responsibilities
Carroll (1979) considers these kinds of responsibilities are ones which society does not
have a clear-cut message for business. They are left to individual judgment and choice. A
business is considered unethical per se if it does not participate in these activities. Carroll
(1991a) presents some characteristics of this category of responsibility: involving in activities
consistent with philanthropic and charitable expectations of society; assisting fine and
performing arts; assisting private and public educational institutions; assisting community
projects to enhance quality of life.
24
2.2.4.5
Summary of Carroll’s 4-Domain Model
Carroll’s definitional CSR model/construct (1979, 1991a) is generally accepted and is
popular in the social issues field, notwithstanding the bulk and variety of definitions and
concepts which have arisen so far (Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Aupperle, 1982, 1991; Burton
and Hegarty, 1999; Carroll, 1999b; Wartick and Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991).
2.2.4.6
Criticisms/Arguments on Carroll’s 4-Domain CSR Model
Notwithstanding the popularity and general acceptance of Carroll’s 4-domain framework,
Aupperle et al. (1985) criticized that the philanthropic domain in Carroll’s model as being difficult
to ascertain and evaluate; and little discussion on how corporations may engage in multiple
domains. Schwartz and Carroll (2003) consider Carroll’s model has “incomplete discussion and
inclusion of criteria for assessing corporate activities or motives as falling into each of the
domains, especially the legal and ethical domains." Wood (1991) argues these four societal
needs represent the responsibility domains in which managers can operate because managers
have discretion on which domain to operate at any particular moment.
2.2.5
Schwartz and Carroll’s Three-Domain CSR Model
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) comment on Carroll’s (1991a) pyramid framework/model
that depicting the four CSR domains as such may be confusing or inappropriate for some
applications. The framework suggests a hierarchy/priority of CSR domains, the domain at the
top may be considered as the most important. Furthermore, the overlapping nature of and
tensions among the CSR domains cannot be fully captured by the pyramid framework.
Notwithstanding the voluntary or discretionary nature of activities classified as
philanthropic/discretionary, Carroll acknowledges it may be ‘inaccurate’ (1979) or a ‘misnomer’
(cited in Schwartz and Carroll, 2003). Schwartz and Carroll (2003) consider philanthropy not a
25
duty or social responsibility of business but something merely desirable or beyond what duty
requires; sometimes it is hard to differentiate between ‘philanthropic’ and ‘ethical’ activities on
both a theoretical and practical level, with philanthropic activities possibly carried out based on
economic interests or as examples of ethically motivated activities.
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) propose an alternative approach to conceptualizing CSR as
presented in a three-domain Venn model framework in Figure 3. They argue that the fourdomain model does not clearly reflect the domains’ non-mutual exclusivity, and philanthropic
activities are just extensions of the ethical domain. This proposed model eliminates the separate
philanthropic category and subsumes it within the economic and/or ethical spheres; showing the
overlapping and interactive nature among ethical, economic and legal domains. The same
terminology used in the four-domain model is used in the three-domain model. The model is
based on several major assumptions: the three CSR domains are somewhat distinct; are allencompassing; philanthropic responsibilities (assumed to be a separate category in Carroll’s
1979 and 1991a models) would be seen as part of ‘ethical and/or economic’ category.
Carroll (2005, cited in Ray, 2006) clarifies stakeholders’ needs and thereby the corporate
responsibilities are not hierarchical in nature and suggests the original 4-domain
conceptualization is not to be replaced by the three-domain one, the latter being one looked at
from another perspective.
26
Figure 3
The 3-Domain Model of CSR (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003)
Depicting the three domains in a Venn diagram suggests none of the domains is more
important or significant relative to the others (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003). With definitions
consistent with Carroll’s (1979, 1991a) 4-domain framework, more complete elaborations and
refinements on the domains are introduced (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003) as stated below.
2.2.5.1
Economic Responsibilities
These include activities intended to have either a direct or indirect positive economic
impact on a corporation, illustrating the characteristics of ‘profits maximization’ and ‘share value
maximization’ as put forward by Carroll’s (1979, 1991a). Examples of direct economic activities
include actions intended to increase sales or avoid litigation; while examples of possible indirect
economic activities include activities that are designed to improve employee morale or the
27
company’s public image. If negative outcomes arise, it could be due to a bad business decision
or an indication of activities with a non-economic motive (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003).
2.2.5.2
Legal Responsibilities
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) suggest legality in this context be looked at from three
general categories: 1) compliance, 2) avoidance of civil litigation, and 3) anticipation of the law
changes.
‘Compliance’ can further be classified into three types: a) passive compliance — a
company doing what it wants and just happens to be law compliant, outcome of its activities
instead of the corporation’s motivations are considered, b) restrictive compliance — company
complies just because the law requires it, c) opportunistic compliance — a corporation abides
by law but takes advantage of loopholes in law, not the spirit of the law, or purposely operates in
a particular jurisdiction where the legal standards are weaker. ‘Avoidance’ involves corporate
activities purposely trying to avoid possible current or future civil litigation for negligent conduct,
for fears of lawsuit. ‘Anticipation’ refers to situations where the legal process is slow and
corporations engage in voluntary activities that will result in immediate compliance on
legislation’s ultimate enactment. The purpose is to help prevent, modify, or slow down the
process of new legislation’s enactment (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003).
2.2.5.3
Ethical Responsibilities
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) suggest the ethical domain also embrace three general
ethical standards: 1) conventional, 2) consequentialist, and 3) deontological.
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) consider ‘conventional’ is defined as those standards or
norms which have been accepted by the organization, the industry, the profession, or society as
necessary for the proper function of business. ‘Consequentialist’ focuses on ends and
28
consequences, including the concept of utilitarianism in promoting the good of society.
“Deontological’ captures a broader range of potential ethical justifications that are duty-based in
nature (e.g. religious doctrine, caring etc.), beyond the principles of moral rights and justice as
suggested by Carroll (1979, 1991a).
2.2.5.4
Overlapping of the Three Domains
In the 3-domain model, seven categories are created in which CSR may be
conceptualized, analysed and illustrated, the ideal one being in the model’s centre
encompassing economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities to be simultaneously fulfilled. This 3domain model is especially useful, where philanthropy may have a more prominent role, in
analyzing forces in ethical decision-making instead of more general discussions of CSR. It will
be extremely difficult to illustrate with examples that tightly fit each of the seven categories
(Schwartz and Carroll, 2003).
2.2.5.5
Limitations of the 3-Domain CSR Model
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) acknowledge each of the three domains is only ‘pure’ in
certain aspects, with an overlap with the other domains at least to some extent. Furthermore, it
is indeterminate whether there are any corporate activities engaging in are without reference to
at least their economic impact, legal system, or ethical principles. If there are, the model has to
be adjusted. Due to the inherently conflicting nature of the various ethical principles, serious
difficulties could result when classifying motives or activities as ethical. Further complications
could arise from determining which ethical and legal standards to apply in the context of
international business operations. The researchers further acknowledge certain CSR categories
(e.g. purely legal, purely ethical, and economic/legal) will rarely apply, thus limiting the
conceptual or practical application of some segments of the model.
29
Notwithstanding the arguments for and against CSR, and different interpretations of
CSR, a lot of organizations have carried out CSR activities or put down CSR in their strategic
agenda.
2.3
What Do Good CSR Organizations Do?
In this era of global economy, a lot of international and/or global organizations have
already started their CSR initiatives.
Examples
HSBC (2011), the world’s local bank, in cooperation with the Hong Kong Quality
Assurance Agency (HKQAA), has launched the HKQAA-HSBC CSR Index — Hong Kong's first
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Index — to provide quantitative performance metrics to
measure and improve corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance of companies in Hong
Kong and enhance associated disclosure and communication with their stakeholders. It is a
business-led index that reports on the seven core subjects of the 'ISO 26000 Guidance on
Social Responsibility' (Draft International Standard) or ISO/DIS 26000. These are:
Organisational Governance, Human Rights, Labour Practices, The Environment, Fair Operating
Practices, Consumer Issues, Community Involvement & Development.
In Hong Kong, a community services organization called ‘Hong Kong Corporate Social
Responsibility Charter’ was established to foster CSR movement in Hong Kong (Charter, 2011).
They put forward the ideas and objectives as “our organisations in Hong Kong have voluntarily
chosen to recognise the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by agreeing to the
values outlined in this Hong Kong CSR Charter” and “we commend this Hong Kong CSR
Charter to all business and other organisational leaders and actively encourage other
enterprises to adopt these values.”
30
Global organizations like GlaxoSmithKline have CSR as part of its mission.
GlaxoSmithKline Plc. (2011) publicly announced “Creating a successful and sustainable
business is about more than financial results. We place great importance not just on what we
achieve but on how we achieve it. We report on our approach and performance on responsible
business issues in our 2010 Corporate Responsibility Review and Report. This is part of our
commitment to be open and transparent about our business activities.”
International ranking of successful organizations can shed some light on the significance
of CSR to an organization. According to the survey on FORTUNE 500 organizations, it shows
“the top 11 companies on the list are headquartered in Europe, where corporate social
responsibility is the lingua franca. The survey measures six criteria, ranging from stakeholder
engagement to performance management, at the top 50 companies on Fortune's Global 500
list.” (Demos, 2006).
Different concepts of CSR in the perception of different people under different cultural
contexts can generate different CSROs. The following sections will look at CSRO’s conceptual
development, measurement tool, and its relationships with various organizational stakeholders.
2.4
Conceptual Development of CSRO
2.4.1
Background
Peter Drucker (1984) supports the notion that businesses should have social
responsibilities as a primary way to economic progress. However CSR has not yet had any
commonly acceptable nor recognized definition(s) and it lacks empirical measures to identify
relationships between, nor among CSRO and other social and economic performance
measures. Related obstacles include continual debates and arguments between proponents of
CSR and those against it (Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Aupperle et al., 1985; Clarkson, 1995;
31
Davis, 1973; Luce et al., 2001; Rowley and Berman, 2000; Sauser Jr., 2005; Steiner, 1971;
Waddock et al., 2002; Wood, 1991; Wood and Jones, 1995).
2.4.2
Aupperle’s CSRO Measure
To measure CSR empirically, Aupperle (1982, 1984, 1991; Aupperle et al., 1985)
originally introduced the term ‘corporate social responsibility orientation’ (‘CSRO’) to apply to
business executives, based on Carroll’s CSR 4-domain framework. It serves as a construct to
capture the perceptions stakeholders have on organizations’ social responsibility and
performance (Smith et al., 2001). The principle behind this construct is to elicit the values or
orientation of organizational decision-makers (Ray, 2006). Aupperle tried to measure CSRO
empirically and quantitatively by categorizing Carroll’s four domains into two concerns —
‘Concern for Society’ consisting of the legal, ethical, and discretionary components; ‘Concern for
Economic Performance’ consisting of economic component (Aupperle, 1982, 1984). His CSRO
instrument has already taken into account views of pro-economic-performance (Entine, 2003;
Friedman, 1970; Yu, 2003), and those pro-social-performance (Carroll, 1979; Davis, 1973;
Makower, 1994; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Sethi, 1975).
Burton et al. (2000) consider Aupperle’s instrument an example of an ipsative scale,
where the level of importance given to each category of responsibility is measured not in
absolute but in relative terms. Aupperle’s CSRO measurement tool has enjoyed great popularity
and recognition in management and social science research fields (Albinger and Freeman, 2000;
Aupperle et al., 1985; Burton and Hegarty, 1999). However, Carroll (1991b) comments
Aupperle’s instrument has a major shortcoming in that focus is just on respondents’ attitudes or
judgments on the relative mix of CSR components as opposed to actual corporate social
performance.
32
Apart from business leaders, there has been research on the relationship between
CSRO and other stakeholders.
2.4.3
CSRO and Key Stakeholders
For more than 2 decades, research has been done trying to establish relationships
between CSR and organizational issues; however, most of the research shows good social
performance can neither generate good nor bad economic performance (Roman et al., 1999).
Carroll (1991a, 2000b) suggests that a full understanding of an organization’s CSR be achieved
by assessing comprehensively different aspects of an organization. Aupperle (1991)
supplemented this idea by suggesting multiple stakeholders be studied in understanding how
key stakeholders look at CSR, that is, stakeholders’ CSRO.
The stakeholders having been under research include: students (Burton and Hegarty,
1999; Kraft, 1991; Kraft and Singhapakdi, 1995); employees (Carson, 2003; Peterson, 2004a,
2004b; Peterson et al., 2001); consumers (Maignan, 2001; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Webb
and Mohr, 1998; Yu, 2003); business leaders (Aupperle et al., 1985; Ibrahim and Angelidis,
1993). Other stakeholders have also been researched on.
Due to the availability of different models, definitions and methodologies e.g. content
analysis or archival studies (Abbott and Monsen, 1979), results of these previous research have
not been conclusive (Agle and Kelley, 2001; Aupperle et al., 1985; Bowen, 1953; Carroll,
1991a,1991b; Greening and Turban, 2000; Sethi, 1975; Waddock and Smith, 2000; Wartick and
Cochran, 1985).
33
2.4.3.1
CSRO and Consumers
Research shows that organizations having good CSR reputation and behaviours can
attract new consumers (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001; Sen and
Bhattacharya, 2001). Consumers would have perceptions of reliability, honesty, highly quality
and trustworthiness towards those organizations (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Not only that,
organizations use this as a differentiating tool from their competitors (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990;
Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Turban & Greening, 1996). Consumers themselves also feel a
sense of social responsibility (Davenport, 2000; Maignan & Ferrell, 2001; Webb & Mohr, 1998).
However, there could be a risk that a negative consumer perception may arise because
consumers might think organizations carrying out some CSR initiatives just to cover up some
other undesirable social behaviours (Entine, 2003; Griffin, 2000; Webb & Mohr, 1998)
2.4.3.2
CSRO and Investors
An investment model ‘social responsible investing’ has been developed allowing
investors to assess an organization’s profitability level with its CSR level in socially-screened
investments (Hutton et al., 1998). They discover that CSR organizations may not be necessarily
financially successful. However, there is no harm in investing in those CSR organizations.
Waddock’s research used Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini (KLD) and Domini Social Fund (DSI)
social investing indices. It suggests that using social criteria in investment appraisal can be
effective (Harrison & Freeman,1999; Hutton et al., 1998).
Conflicting research results also exist. Some top-100 corporations in USA did not
provide good return on investments to their stockholders even though they have been
considered as socially responsible (Asmus, 2003).
34
2.4.3.3
CSRO and Business Leaders
It is the orientation or value of corporations or CEOs that drive organizational decisions
(Angelidis et al., 2008; Ray 2006; Sharfman et al., 2000). Carroll (1999b) defines social
responsibility as organization leaders’ perceptions of the obligations to consider the effects of
their decisions and actions on the whole social system.
Christians’ personal values drive their motivation toward solving social problems
(Angelidis & Ibrahims, 2004). Business leaders having low CSRO have been found to have
competitive disadvantage (Holliday et al, 2002).
2.4.4 Students’ CSRO
Some previous research (predominantly in Anglo-Saxon contexts) was based on
Carroll’s (1979) construct and/or Aupperle’s (1982) CSRO measurement tool. For example,
business students have been used as research objects on their CSRO using Aupperle’s CSRO
measurement tool or others (Angelidis et al., 2008; Burton et al., 2000; Ibrahim et al., 2000;
Ibrahim et al., 2006, 2007; Ray, 2006; Smith at el., 2001). Business students have also been
studied using Carroll’s (1979) construct (Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2004).
Compared to corporate executives, the majority of business-major students typically
show lower ethical and moral standards (Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2002). When compared to
service-sector managers, business students lack a thorough understanding of how ethical
conduct and CSR affect organizational effectiveness (Kraft and Singhapakdi, 1995)
There were differences in CSRO between business students at secular and non-secular
universities. The students of secular universities show greater concern about the legal
component of corporate responsibility and a weaker orientation toward discretionary activities,
when compared to business students in non-secular universities (Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2002).
35
Compared to practicing managers, business students were found to show greater concern
about the ethical and discretionary components of CSR and a weaker orientation toward
economic performance (Ibrahim and Angelidis, 1993).
In the study of Burton et al (2000), they examined the CSRO of 165 US and 157 Hong
Kong business students, results show the students differed much in the categories of
responsibility in terms of importance. Hong Kong students attached more importance to
economic responsibilities and less importance to non-economic ones as compared to US
students. The researchers comment the level of development of a country may be an indicator
in CSRO.
Elias (2004) examined differences in students’ perceptions of the importance of social
responsibility before and after major corporate failures. Results show students in general
consider CSR more important to profitability and long-term success of the organization and less
important to short-term success after media publicity of corporate scandals; demographic
differences also account for differences in students’ CSRO. On the issue of religiousness,
Ibrahim et al. (2007) research on students find there is positive relationship between students’
religiousness and CSRO.
Arlow (1991), while commenting that relatively little attention has been devoted to the
study of the CSRO of business students, finds personal characteristics play an important role in
college students’ evaluation of business ethics and CSR; and undergraduate major seems to
have little influence on students’ ethical values. However, Ibrahim and Angelidis (1993) consider
“very few studies have examined the attitudes of business students before they began their
managerial careers”.
Notwithstanding some research has been done on students, Angelidis and Ibrahim
(2002) criticize that “a major weakness of all these studies is their ‘global nature’, i.e. treating
36
the universities in which these students are enrolled alike as a homogeneous group. In addition,
most of the earlier investigations were conducted when the social responsibility of corporations
was rarely examined in business school curricula”.
Different CSROs of different status of people toward an organization can serve different
purposes or create different relationships, employment-choice could be one of them. The next
stage is to study possible relationships between people’s CSRO and EA.
2.5
Employer Attractiveness
2.5.1
Introduction
Previous research has not agreed upon a singular definition of EA, rather efforts have
been made to identify its influencing factors. Employer attractiveness (‘EA’) is a dependent
variable and previous research identified that it is a function of an array of independent variables
which could include the organization’s reputation or image (Belt and Paolillo, 1982), social
responsibility (Backhaus et al., 2002; Mercer, 2003); values and objectives, recruitment and
workforce development strategies; job applicants’ status (Greening and Turban, 2000; Kraft and
Singhapakdi, 1995), gender (Kraft, 1991), familiarity with the organization, personal values,
religion (Anderson, 1989; Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2004; Thompson and Hood, 1993), culture and
diversity, geographical location (Turban and Keon, 1993), internal management structure
(Greenhaus et al., 1978), leadership style (Schneider, 1987), organizational attributes (Turban
et al., 1998) and CSRO.
EA represents the perception of an applicant towards an organization. Applicants
choose an organization as employer because they believe the organization can produce the
applicants’ valued outcomes (Schneider, 1987; Vroom, 1966). On the other hand, organizations
also want to recruit and keep quality human capital especially in this learning economy in order
37
to sustain or be competitive (Fitz-enz, 2000; Greening and Turban, 2000; Pfeffer, 1994;
Schneider, 1987). The result can be a win-win situation.
Thus there is a need to identify all the most commonly occurring factors and those
pertinent ones contributing to EA, from both the perspectives of organizations and applicants, in
the contexts and backgrounds within which an employer-employee relationship can arise.
Organization-person fit is one among them.
2.5.2
Organization-Person Fit
Organizations would be concerned what their future employees are in the same way as
applicants looking for and considering which organizations as their employers. The relationship
is considered as organizational entry. Four stages of entry are identified: recruitment, selection,
orientation and socialization (Wanous, 1992). Recruitment is a process of mutual attraction
whereas selection is of mutual choice. Orientation and socialization processes have a longer
term perspective in achieving the organization-person fit.
In job search, it was found job-seekers use various clues, dropped by the firm, to draw
conclusions about the firm’s intentions or actions and job seekers tend to use organizational
characteristics as clues (Srivastava and Lurie, 2001). People’s preferred environments are
those that have the same personality profile as they have (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Holland,
1976; Tom, 1971).
In the study by Turban and Keon (1993) on how person-environment fit influences EA, it
was found that structural attributes (such as decentralized decision making) do influence EA.
Persons with low personality characteristics of self-esteem are more attracted to decentralized
and larger firms than high self-esteem persons; persons in general are more attracted to
38
decentralized (vs. centralized) organizations and reward based on performance (vs. tenurebased).
It is suggested individuals derive their self-concept in part from their membership in
certain social groups, and employer is an important source of self-concept (Ashforth and Mael,
1989; Backhaus et al., 2002; Lievens and Highhouse, 2003; Maignan and Ferrell, 2001;
Peterson, 2004b). Applicants seem to prefer working for organizations that they perceive
matching their own values (Backhaus et al., 2002; Bhattacharya et al., 2008).
However, Cable and Judge (1996) find applicants when making job choice decisions,
their person-organization fit perceptions are predicted by the congruence between their values
and their perceptions of recruiting organizations’, but not by their demographic similarity with
organizational representatives.
It has been suggested that corporations hoping to be competitive in attracting employees
should pay more attention to their CSR (Albinger and Freeman, 2000). With the understanding
of those most commonly occurring and organization-fit factors, contributing factors on EA in job
search are then to be identified, with focus on potential applicants’ and particularly to
undergraduate students’ CSRO.
2.5.3
Commonly Occurring Influencing Factors
2.5.3.1
Organizational Recruitment
A lot of research has been on recruitment. Future success and competitive advantage of
an organization much depend on how its recruitment activities are carried out (Fitz-enz, 2000;
Pfeffer, 1994), by committing resources for scarce resources (Maurer et al., 1992). Staffing, of
which recruiting forms a part, is the processes to identify, assess, place, evaluate and develop
people at work (Schneider, 1976). Recruitment is actually a 2-way process, in which applicants
39
hope the jobs can satisfy their needs while the organizations hope to employ people satisfying
certain criteria (Schneider, 1976, 1987). Boudreau & Rynes (1985) defines recruiting as the
process that allows organizations to inform applicants, prior to the selection process, while
Schneider defines it as an organization’s effort to show how an organization can satisfy both the
needs of both an organization and the applicants. Effective recruitment can generate an
adequate applicant pool for an organization to select the right candidate (Dessler, 1999).
Provision of corporate information to potential employees plays a very important role
(Turban and Dougherty, 1992). First of all, the recruitment advertisements must catch the
applicant pool’s attention, create their desire, and provoke their action to apply (Belt and Paolillo,
1982; Boudreau and Rynes, 1985; Wanous, 1992). The approach used by a recruiter can also
affect an applicant’s perception of attractiveness of the recruiter as an employer (Greenhaus et
al., 1978). Recruiters can send out signals about their CSR to potential applicants as a
competitive advantage in recruitment (Greening and Turban, 2000; Turban and Dougherty,
1992).
In consonance with stakeholder theory (Clarkson, 1998; Freeman, 1984), corporate
information available to the public at large should cater for different needs of stakeholders as
different corporations would attract different types of applicants (Agle and Caldwell, 1999; Luce
et al., 2001; Michell et al., 1997; Turban and Keon, 1993).
2.5.3.2
Recruitment Image
“An image is the set of meanings by which an object is known and through which people
describe and relate to it. That is, it is the net result of the interaction of a person’s beliefs, ideas,
feelings and impressions about an object” (Aaker and Myers, 1982; Waring and Lewer, 2004).
Lemmink (2003) considers there is no generally accepted definition of image in the academic
40
literature. Corporate employment image is formed by many factors and not only created after
exposure to recruitment activities.
Research shows there are positive relationships between corporate image and response
to recruitment advertisement (Dowling, 1986,1988; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Ferris et al.,
2002; Gatewood et al., 1993); between corporate image and EA (Albinger and Freeman, 2000;
Schneider, 1976; Turban and Greening, 1996). Corporate image in turn is influenced by its
social responsibilities (Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Tom, 1971;
Wulfson, 2001); social performance (Backhaus eta al., 2002), employees’ own perception (Koys,
2001; Riordan et al., 1997), applicants’ own values (Chatman, 1989)
2.5.3.3
Organizational Choice
On the part of organizations, understanding the rationale behind applicants’ thoughts is
important in their recruitment strategies. People would choose which organizations they would
like to work with to satisfy certain externally or internally driven needs, also relating to employer
attractiveness (Holland, 1976; Schneider, 1987). Financial incentive is not the only motivator,
according to the needs theory framework (Schneider, 1976), applicants would also consider the
personal values (Vroom, 1966), previous training, and past experiences. Alderfer et al. (1970)
put forward three types of needs which people must meet: 1) existence needs including
attainment of tangible things; 2) relatedness needs in relationship with other people; 3) growth
needs.
Wanous (1992) puts forward two views on organizational choice; 1) unprogrammed view
where applicants do not have much information about an organization; 2) systemic rational view
where applicants are rational and find out and compare information collected of different
organizations with a view to make a close match between them and the organizations.
41
2.5.4
Influencing Factors of EA to Potential Applicants
By considering the possible contributing factors of EA to potential applicants, possible
research gaps may be found in the relationship between the CSRO of undergraduate students
in Hong Kong and EA,
Previous CSR research has used students as subjects, on the proposition that education
would have positive impact on CSR ratings (Burton and Hegarty, 1999; Greening and Turban,
2000; Kraft and Singhapakdi, 1995; Tom, 1971). Burton and Hegarty (1999) studied 182 MBA
and undergraduate students with their acting as employees, managers or investors trying to find
out their perception of organizational effectiveness when using CSR as a criterion, results show
that students rate CSR as less important than other factors. Some research reveals the degree
of specificity of the students’ qualifications do not significantly influence the likelihood of student
response to recruitment advertisement (Belt and Paolillo, 1982).
Research also shows that when comparing MBA students and undergraduate students,
the former generally rate legal/ethical performance relatively higher and CSR higher as a whole
than the latter (Kraft and Singhapakdi, 1995). It was also found that college students about to
graduate have a wide range of financial and non-financial rewards to look for and consider in job
selections (McGinty and Reitsch, 1992).
2.5.4.1
Gender of Applicants
Some research results show females consider ethics and social responsibility more
important than male respondents (Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2004; Burton and Hegarty, 1999; Kraft
and Singhapakdi, 1995; Mercer, 2003), especially in the treatment of females and minorities
(Backhaus et al., 2002). It was also found that gender is a factor more susceptible to recruitment
42
advertisement, and related to corporate image and employment likelihood (Belt and Paolillo,
1982).
2.5.4.2
Student Academic Status
In previous research, high school students and college students especially of business
majors and MBA students have been the research subjects (Heslin and Ochoa, 2008; Rau and
Hyland, 2002; Turban and Greening, 1997). But the students researched are mainly from USA
and carried in Anglo-Saxon culture contexts.
2.5.4.3
Familiarity with Prospective Employers
EA of an organization can also be enhanced by applicants’ familiarity with the
organization, therefore promoting the familiarity is crucial in recruitment (Luce et al., 2001).
2.5.4.4
CSP/CSR
Empirical evidence shows that individuals prefer seeking employment with organizations
that are socially responsible or has high CSP than those than are not or lower in standards
(Aiman-Smith et al., 2001; Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Backhaus et al., 2002; Phillips, 2008;
Puncheva-Michelotti and Michelotti, 2009; Smith et al., 2004; Turban and Greening, 1997). For
example, a 2006 survey of 2,100 MBA students reveals 59% of them prefer to find social
responsible work immediately on graduation, and 79% would at some point in their careers
(Heslin and Ochoa, 2008).
Turban and Greening (1997) also theorizes an organization’s CSP provides potential
applicants with signals about the organization’s value system, thus influencing applicants’
perceptions of the working conditions and subsequent attraction to the organization.
43
For applicants with higher levels of job choice, organizations’ EA has a positive
relationship with their corporate social performance (‘CSP’) records, in an investigation into the
link between organizations’ CSP and their EA in different job-seeking populations. The results
suggest high-CSP organizations will have advantages and ability to attract the most qualified
employees (Albinger and Freeman, 2000).
The degree of Perceived Corporate Citizenship by applicants is associated with the level
of organizational attractiveness, this tool can be leveraged in entry-level positions and can cut
down on recruitment costs, based on selective hiring (Evans and Davis, 2008). Applicants also
like to know an organization’s social performance record (Backhaus et al., 2002). To attract
applicants, organizations will highlight their CSP in their recruitment materials (Burton and
Hegarty, 1999; Luce et al., 2001; Turban and Greening, 1996).
With knowledge of potential employers’ CSR or CSP, students will weigh them and
determine EA (Turban and Greening, 1996), likely consideration factors can include treatment
of women and minorities, environmental protection, product quality, employee relations etc.
(Greening and Turban, 2000).
Ray (2006) comments that there are some problems with current research. They include:
1) no control for organizations’ reputations, 2) the factors under measurement are too specific
(diversity, gender issues, and socio-political factors), 3) respondents’ CSRO have not been
clearly measured.
The above shows there is an array of factors/variables influencing EA to potential
applicants. Among those factors/variables, job applicants’ CSRO, the ways they make sense of
their employment decisions, and their values in use may have significant impacts, which are
thus worth exploring into.
44
2.6
Relationship between Undergraduate Students’ CSRO and EA
2.6.1 Background
Since Arlow’s research (1991), there seems to be not much focus on business students’
evaluation of business ethics and CSR, even less on the relationship between undergraduate
students’ CSRO and EA.
McGinty and Reitsch (1992a) consider about-to-graduate college students looking for
employment appear to be interested in a wide range of non-financial and financial rewards that
make up the employment agreement. Luce at el (2001) comment that “there have been few
articles researching the relationship between social responsibility and employer attractiveness,
but none have considered a comprehensive framework such as Carroll or Aupperle in
researching CSRO and job applicants as a substantial stakeholder group.”
2.6.2 Previous Research
Angelidis and Ibrahim (2004) comment that “A major weakness of many studies on
students' corporate social responsiveness orientation (CSRO) is their ‘global’ nature, i.e.,
treating all students alike, despite the presence of meaningful differences among them in terms
of their values and beliefs. This lack of homogeneity may provide an explanation for the mixed
and ambiguous results reported by previous investigators.”
Ray (2006) carried out research, mainly quantitative in nature, on the relationship
between CSRO and EA among college business students in different business majors at both
undergraduate and graduate levels mainly of the white community. Ray’s research was based
on Carroll’s 4-domain CSR model (1979, 1991a) and Aupperle’s CSRO measurement tool
(1982).
45
The key findings of Ray’s research (2006) are: “1) Students differentiated between
organizations with varying degrees of CSR behaviors; 2) Females were more likely to rate
organizations with high discretionary behaviors as more attractive than males; 3) There seemed
to be no significant differences in the way that minority and non-minority respondents rated
attractiveness when presented with varying CSR behaviors; 4) Gender often moderated the
relationship between CSRO and employer attractiveness, while minority status did not; 5) For
individuals with a higher concern for economic performance orientation, economic behavior was
a key indicator of attractiveness regardless of an organization’s performance on ethical and
discretionary behaviors; and 6) The absence of ethical or discretionary behaviors seemed to be
a more influential factor than the presence of these behaviors when making employment
decisions among those with a higher concern for society orientation.”
2.6.3 Research Gaps
Whilst this indicates that there is considerable interest in the area, it is also clear that
certain aspects of the field remain under-researched. There are gaps in the research on the
relationship between undergraduate students’ CSRO and EA. Previous research, particularly
Ray’s (2006), was mainly based on Carroll’s (1979, 1991a) 4-domain model of total
organizational CSR, the four domains are mutually non-exclusive, with decreasing order of
implied attention. Carroll (1979) acknowledges any domain (responsibilities) could have
economic, legal, ethical, or discretionary motives embodied in it. To measure students’ CSRO in
quantitative terms, Ray (2006) adopted Aupperle’s (1982) CSRO measurement tool, by
arbitrarily classifying CSRO into two concerns: concern for society (legal, ethical, and
discretionary domains) and concern for economic performance (economic domains); also with
the use of hypothetical company vignettes.
46
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) propose an alternative approach to look at CSR, with just
three domains (ethical, economic, and legal) with pure and overlapping nature, resulting in
seven categories/combinations of domains. However, it seems there has been no research
based on this three-domain model to study undergraduate students’ CSRO and EA relationship
in Hong Kong graduate labour market.
In fact, undergraduate students’ CSRO-EA relationship may not be in a discrete and
hierarchical arrangement per Carroll’s 4-domain model, but could be of hybrid types as depicted
in the 3-domain model, or even possibly based on some other factors. Also no research
evidence is available using a qualitative approach, by investigating graduates’ espoused values
and values in use in this research area. There could also be a possibility that a graduate’s
CSRO (espoused values) are not congruent with what the graduates are actually doing (values
in use).
McInnes and Beech (2005) reflected “we examined the barrier to experiencing process
presented by our use of time to order the world and secure self and that the cumulative
assumptions of knowledge acquisition were a part of this process” and “through illustrative
narratives we have identified two forms of dualistic self; current/future self and current/real self.
We have argued that, for different reasons, our research participant’s assumed journey towards
the desired future self may be delusory.”
Previous research in this area has been mainly in Anglo-Saxon cultural contexts, little
research has been done in Hong Kong graduate labour market, with vast differences in cultural
backgrounds and ethnicity as compared with previous research. Similarly, no research has been
done differentiating undergraduate students between those who have taken and those not taken
an ethics course.
47
Therefore, there is an opportunity to extend the field of current knowledge by focusing on
Hong Kong undergraduates, exploring the relationship between CSRO and EA through the use
of in-depth, qualitative methods that may shed light on both the espoused values and values in
use of the students.
2.6.4 Conceptual Framework for Present Research
Based on the literature reviewed and for the present research, a conceptual framework
is presented in Figure 4 below showing the relationships that might exist between CSRO and
EA (Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Greening and Turban, 2000; Harrison and Freeman, 1999;
Webb and Mohr, 1998). The research is at the individual level of students in Hong Kong’s
graduate labour market.
Figure 4
Conceptual Framework for this research
CSR
- philanthropic
- ethical
- legal
- economic
»
EA
- CSP
- corporate values
- corporate reputation/image
- recruitment and workforce
development strategies
- culture and diversity
- internal management structure
- organization-person fit
CSRO
Potential moderating factors
- ethics study
- study majors
- study mode
- gender
48
2.7
Research Questions
To fill the gaps mentioned above, more research has to be done on the relationship
between undergraduates students’ (a substantial stakeholder group in society) CSRO and an
organization’s employer attractiveness (Arlow, 1991; Luce et al., 2001; Ray, 2006) by using a
qualitative approach.
2.7.1
Research Question One
What attributes/factors would undergraduate students (having taken an ethics course) use to
differentiate between a good CSR and a bad CSR organization?
2.7.2
Research Question Two
What attributes/factors would undergraduate students (not having taken an ethics course) use
to differentiate between a good CSR and a bad CSR organization?
2.7.3
Research Question Three
Do undergraduate students make sense in a segregated way (based on Carroll’s 1979 and
1991a model) or in a hybrid way (based on Schwartz and Carroll’s 2003 model), or in some
other way when making either negative or positive employment-choice decisions in Hong Kong
graduate labour market?
2.7.4
Research Question Four
Are undergraduate students’ CSRO (espoused values) in congruence with what students are
actually doing (values in use) in their employer-choice process in Hong Kong graduate labour
market? What insights into the sense-making of students regarding CSR values and employer
choice can be derived?
49
3.
3.1
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The previous chapter outlined the literature and research gap identified, on which the
research questions were framed. This chapter discusses the empirical research conducted,
explains the research design, paradigm, methods, research participants, data collection and
analysis methods. The limitations of the research method are also briefly discussed.
Roberts and Wallace and O’Farrell (2012) consider the philosophical approach adopted
can affect a wide range of different aspects of the research, including: the basic methodological
design; the choice of sample and type of data collected; the method of processing the data; how
the outcomes of the analysis are interpreted; how results are converted into conclusions; and
the extent to which the research contributes to the knowledge base. The knowledge and
understanding of humanity is in all cases incomplete. People know a great deal about some
things but don’t know all there is to know about anything. Research is concerned with finding out
new things and adding to the knowledge base. For example, in terms of epistemology, research
is concerned with expanding the limits of the knowledge base and with increasing the validity of
the existing knowledge base.
3.2
Research Design
This section describes and rationalizes the adoption of qualitative research as the
primary approach, supplemented by quantitative research, for the study. The study used a
focus-group interview approach, supplemented by a questionnaire survey and a post focusgroup phone-interview (with individual focus-group members). The research is essentially
constructionist, but incorporates elements of positivism in the questionnaire survey. This mix is
50
justified because part of the purpose of the research is to discover what people do (positivist
description) and part is to analyse what sense-making they are doing and how they construct
their value positions (constructionism in the focus groups).
3.2.1
Qualitative Inquiry
Qualitative research, according to Marshall and Rossman (1999), “is a broad approach
to the study of social phenomena… and grounded in the lived experiences of people.” Denzin
and Lincoln (2000) consider qualitative research a field of inquiry consisting of many complex,
interconnected terms, concepts and assumptions. It locates the observer in the world. It consists
of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible.
Patton (2002) considers “Qualitative inquiry is particularly oriented toward exploration,
discovery, and inductive logic. Inductive analysis begins with specific observations and builds
toward general patterns. Categories or dimensions of analysis emerge from open-ended
observations as the inquirer comes to understand patterns that exist in the phenomenon being
investigated. Researchers and evaluators analyzing qualitative data strive to understand a
phenomenon or programme as a whole. The holistic approach assumes that the whole is
understood as a complex system that is greater than the sum of its parts. The advantages of
qualitative portrayals of holistic settings and impacts are that greater attention can be given to
nuance, setting, interdependencies, complexities, idiosyncrasies, and context.”
The contextual setting is of much importance in qualitative approaches, so are the
detailed knowledge gathered from the context and daily events. As Taylor and Bogdan (1998)
put “the aim is to develop “concepts, insights, and understandings from patterns in the data
rather than collecting data to assess preconceived models, hypotheses, or theories.”
51
By analysing data from various sources and perspectives, qualitative inquiry emphasizes
on interpretation of descriptions with a view to answer the question ‘What is going on here?’.
Van Maanen (1983) suggests qualitative research is a craft, presenting a coherent description
of a claimed reality. Patton (2002) corroborates in saying “qualitative data consist of quotations,
observations, and excerpts from documents. Qualitative data describe. They take us, as readers,
into the time and place of the observation so that we know what it was like to have been there.
They capture and communicate someone else’s experience of the world in his or her own words.
Qualitative data tell a story.” The techniques available to qualitative researchers include:
interviewing, case studies, observation, archival data collection, historical analysis and
conversational analysis (Roberts et al., 2011).
Eisner (1991) posits some features of qualitative studies, mainly: qualitative studies are
field-focused and usually non-manipulative. Qualitative researchers use the self as an
instrument, able to be engaged in a situation and make sense out of it, through their perceptive
and interpretive abilities. They “try to account for what they have given an account of”, based on
the issue of meaning in terms of participants’ motives and quality of experience. In this process,
qualitative researchers’ judgment — coherence, insight and instrumental utility — is called for,
because a reasonable case or conclusion can only be drawn through insightful reasoning and
persuasion, instead of just relaying on the ‘facts’ which could not speak for themselves.
Guba and Lincoln (1981) comment “Fatigue, shifts in knowledge, and cooptation, as well
as variations resulting from differences in training, skill, and experience among different
“instrument,” easily occur. But this loss in rigor is more than offset by the flexibility, insight, and
ability to build on tacit knowledge that is the peculiar province of the human instrument.
52
3.2.2
Critiques on Qualitative Inquiry
There have always been methodological debates. Patton (1997) views the ideas of
absolute objectivity and value-free science as impossible to attain in practice and of
questionable desirability in the first place since they ignore the intrinsically social nature and
human purposes of research. He (2002) further elaborates that methodologists and
philosophers of science debate what the researcher’s stance should be vis-à-vis the people
being studied. Critics of qualitative inquiry have charged that the approach is too subjective, in
large part because the researcher is the instrument of both data collection and data
interpretation and because a qualitative strategy includes having personal contact with and
getting close to the people and situation under study. However, in research on sense-making
and how people construct their positions, qualitative and subjectively-oriented approaches are
the norm because they give insight into the nuances and processes of the social constructions
going on.
3.2.3
Quantitative Inquiry
The positivist is concerned primarily with objective and quantitative research. He or she
looks at populations as a whole and tries to generate causal relationships between relative
variables, often within a controlled environment. The positivist usually generates a series of
hypotheses which are subsequently tested using established statistical tools and techniques.
The sample is chosen and data are collected in relation to these hypotheses so that they can be
tested. The end result of the research could be the acceptance of an existing theory or the
generation of a new theory for subsequent testing by other researchers. Positivist research
often uses a reductionist approach, where complex variables are reduced to the most simple,
or fundamental explanation possible. Questions that are more appropriate for quantitative
53
analysis where the basic questions are ‘how often’ or ‘how many’ or ‘how much’ . (Roberts et al.,
2012).
Using larger samples selected randomly can control selection bias and selectivity errors.
Quantitative measures are succinct and data thus collected is systematic and standardized,
aiding aggregation for analysis (Patton, 2002).
3.2.4
Critiques of Quantitative Inquiry
Patton (2002) argues that “these variables are statistically manipulated or added
together in some linear fashion to test hypotheses and draw inferences about the relationships
among separate indicators, or the statistical significance of differences between measured
levels of the variables for different groups. The primary critique of this logic by quantitativenaturalistic evaluators is that such an approach (1) oversimplifies the complexities of real-world
systems and participants’ experiences, 2) misses major factors of importance that are not easily
quantified, and (3) fails to portray a sense of the system and its impacts as a whole.”
For example, using surveys to collect data is a reasonable approach to investigate
relationships between two constructs, but not to identify singular causes in many complex areas
of human activity (Alreck & Settle, 1995). Quantitative methods alone can provide only a partial
view of what is happening in any given social science application. This argument applies to the
present research which tries to understand students’ perceptions towards some social issues.
Consequently, mixing qualitative and quantitative research methods is a reasonable and
appropriate approach for the present research, the aim being to take advantage of the strengths
of both approaches.
54
3.2.5
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods
This research adopted a methodology that mixed quantitative and qualitative methods to
answer the research questions, which helps to answer different types of research question.
Thus the methodology adopted in the present research was constructed to provide a cultural
context, Hong Kong, for the interpretations of results.
Chambon et al. (2000) observe that there has been a rising interest in the combined use
of qualitative and quantitative methods, finding its acceptance in peer-reviewed journals with
increasing numbers of published articles are using the combined techniques. Research is a
social and cultural activity grounded in our real life, a process shaped by the experiences,
institutional contexts and knowledge of the community where the research is carried out.
In practice, a research study can combine both these approaches and methods. The
quantitative/experimental approach is largely hypothetico-deductive while the
qualitative/naturalistic approach largely inductive. During a research study, inductive approach
can start the flow to find out what the important questions and variables are (exploratory work),
followed by deductive hypothesis-testing or outcome measurement to confirm and/or generalize
exploratory findings, then back again to inductive analysis to look for rival hypotheses and
unanticipated factors. Thus both quantitative and qualitative data can be collected in the same
study (Patton, 2002).
Multi-method research design is intended to allow one source of Information be
supplemented and/or complemented another to strengthen the findings of the research. In the
process, the researcher can use different data sources to approach a research problem from
different points of view. In other words, quantitative and qualitative research methods influence
the design and response to research questions in different, but potentially complementary ways.
Therefore, the combined approach also helps the researcher to capitalize on the strengths of
55
each approach and, ideally, offset their different weaknesses. This form of research
methodology can contribute to providing more comprehensive answers to research questions by
going beyond the limitations of a single approach (Jacobs,2006; Yoshikawa et al, 2006).
Yoshikawa et al. (2006) consider diverging data across methods can contribute to enhancing
the quality of the results of the different methods used.
In the present research, results from the focus-group interviews were compared with
those from the questionnaire survey and the post-focus-group phone-interview (with individual
focus-group members). It not only allows the researcher to use information and evidence from
one method to clarify issues and findings in the other method, but also helps to clarify the
relationships between some of the ideas and issues that the research questions covered.
Therefore, it can be argued that the methodology used in the present research is to ensure and
contribute to enhancing the quality of the findings, thereby helping to reduce the likely reliability
problems.
In summary, to make the present research credible, it is imperative to seek meaningful,
honest and empirically supported findings. To this effect, while adopting a stance of neutrality
towards the phenomenon under study, the researcher has to be committed to understanding the
world as it unfolds, bringing out the complexities and multiple perspectives as they emerge,
reporting in a balanced manner both confirmatory and disconfirming evidence with respect to
any conclusions reached.
3.3
Data Collection and Research Methods
Data for the research was obtained in the following ways. First, 15 focus-group
interviews were conducted with 97 students (full-time and part-time modes) in their senior years
to identify the pertinent factors the research participants (i.e. the students) have in making
employment-choices. Then, on the same occasions, students were invited to fill in a qualitative
56
survey questionnaire, on an individual basis, consisting of 3 components soliciting their
feedback on i) the attributes/factors students would use to differentiate between a good CSR
and a bad CSR organization; ii) students’ CSRO; and iii) students’ demographic information.
Second, about three months after the focus-group interviews, a follow-up in the form of a phone
interview preceded by an email notification was undertaken with the participants to gather
information on their actual employment-choice decisions during the intervening period. During
the whole process, the researcher was the facilitator.
3.3.1
Purposeful Sampling
“There are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry. Sample size depends on what
you want to know, the purpose of the inquiry, what’s at stake, what will be useful, what will have
credibility, and what can be done with available time and resources (Patton, 2002).
Stern (2007) suggests “the sample needs to be representative, but it’s unnecessary and
perhaps defeating to collect huge amount of data. Non-probability sampling in qualitative study
often begins by recruiting participants solely based on whether they have experience of the
research topic in question. The most obvious way to locate such participants is to go to where
they are most likely to be located. Potential participants were invited partly on the basis of
accessibility, with the researcher recruiting intentionally/purposefully from wherever these
people may be or wherever they may gather”.
Purposeful sampling is sometimes called “judgment sampling”. “In judgment sampling,
you decide the purpose you want informants (or communities) to serve, and you go out to find
some” (Bernard, 2000). The researcher’s judgment as to typicality or interest is the principle of
selection in purposive sampling. The sample that built up will enable the researcher to satisfy
his/her specific needs in a project (Robson, 2002)
57
Selecting information-rich cases is the principle for purposeful sampling. Information-rich
cases will illuminate the questions under study. One can learn a great deal about matters of
importance and therefore worthy of in-depth understanding, often opening up new territory for
further research. However, there are no perfect designs. The logic in sampling strategy is to
have fit-for-purpose of the study, the resources availability, the questions to be asked, and the
constraints being faced. This holds true for sampling strategy as well as sample size (Patton,
2002)
To select information-rich cases yet with fundamental homogeneity to illuminate the
research questions in the present research, stratified purposeful sampling was used. According
to Patton (2002), “stratified samples are samples within samples, stratification can be by
socioeconomic status within a larger population”. In the present research, the samples are
stratified by their modes of study, study majors and job status.
3.3.2
Research Participants Engagement
The researcher successfully engaged 97 senior-year students (43 males, 54 females)
studying at the university for which the researcher has worked for more than 10 years in both
teaching and programme-management. The students had either been taught by or in close
contact with the researcher, therefore their voluntary engagement and participation presented
no difficulty. In addition, they had great interest in the research topic because they consider the
exposure can benefit their future employment-choice decision.
All the participants were selected based on the following eligibility criteria: senior-year
student status, studying on either full- or part-time mode, either having studied an ethics course
or have not, business or business (industry-oriented) majors, and gender. To make the research
results meaningful and illuminative, purposeful distribution of students across focus-groups was
58
made, based on the eligibility criteria. Details of which will be covered in the Data Collection,
Findings and Analysis Chapter.
3.3.3
Focus Group Interview
“In a focus group participants get to hear each other’s responses and to make additional
comments beyond their own original responses as they hear what other people have to say.
However, participants need not agree with each other or reach any kind of consensus. Nor is it
necessary for people to disagree. The object is to get high-quality data in a social context where
people can consider their own views in the context of the views of others.” (Patton, 2002)
The researcher or a moderator acts as a facilitator in a focus-group interview, creating a
permissive environment and focusing questions to foster discussion and the sharing of diverse
points of view to help understand the research topic (Kruger & Casey, 2000; Marshall &
Rossman, 1999). Generally each focus group interview consists of 7 to 10 people selected
because they share certain characteristics relevant to the study’s questions” (Marshall &
Rossman,1999). Focus-group interview is able to draw upon participants’ attitudes, feelings,
beliefs, experiences and opinions in a way that would not be achievable from other methods. It
can be a useful complement to other research methods (Gibbs, 1997).
A focus-group interview process calls for a transparent and trusting environment under
which participants’ opinions will not be influenced (Krueger, 1994). According to Krueger and
Casey (2000), a focus-group interview is a carefully planned series of discussions
organized in a non-threatening environment that seeks perceptions of participants on issues.
The researcher as a facilitator should be honest and keep participants informed about the
expectations of the group and the issues to be discussed without pressuring participants to
speak (Edmunds, 1999).
59
Frey & Fontana (1993) consider that the focus-group interview uses many of the
techniques of individual interviews but without the intrusive, often intimidating atmosphere.
Rather it replaces them with a small group setting more inviting for participants, able to foster
free expression of ideas, and encouraging all members of the group to speak up. “Groups are
not just a convenient way to accumulate the individual knowledge of their members. They give
rise synergistically to insights and solutions that would not come about without them” (Brown,
Collins and Duguid, 1989).
Focus-group interviews can narrow the gap between those with power and those lacking
it, because communication channels are open and both sides can voice their opinions and
views in an atmosphere free from worry about retribution. Participants can also discuss complex
and controversial issues, as well as in situations where more information is sought about the
degree of consensus pertaining to an issue (Morgan and Krueger, 1993).
Focus-group interview can be used alone or as a complement to other research
methods (Wolff et al, 1991). When used sequentially with survey questionnaire interviews,
focus-group interviews can help to explore issues (Hoppe et al 1995; Lankshear 1993).
Beech, MacIntosh and McInnes (2008) consider “there is now an increasing interest in
the dynamics of identities as they impact on in-group members’ interpretations of themselves,
others and their social situation. We are concerned with such interpretations as they impact on
actions which are perceived by others, and so constitute an input into the interpretative
processes of those others.”
However, focus-group interviews have disadvantages. A comment may divert direction
and discussions to areas other than what was being focused on (Glitz, 1998; Panyan, Hillman,
& Liggett, 1997). Due to their small sizes, the findings of focus groups cannot be projected onto
the entire population. Discussion results depend on the interaction between the participants and
60
the facilitator/moderator, and are therefore context-specific (Greenbaum, 2000). Those who
realize their viewpoint is a minority perspective may not be inclined to speak up and risk
negative reactions (Patton, 2002). “The focus group is beneficial for identification of major
themes but not so much for the micro-analysis of subtle differences” (Krueger, 1994). “Focus
groups typically have the disadvantage of taking place outside of the natural settings where
social interactions normally occur (Madriz, 2000).”
Focus groups interviews can elicit insights and understandings while a survey
questionnaire cannot. Thus combining focus-group interview with survey questionnaire has
provided a diversified and rich source of data with which to respond to the research questions of
the present research. As Loftland (1971) suggests, “To capture participants ‘in their own terms’
one must learn their categories for rendering explicable and coherent the flux of raw reality. That,
indeed, is the first principle of qualitative analysis.”
The focus-group questions for this research are in Part I of a 6-page interview document
at Appendix B. There are five questions in this Part.
3.3.4
Survey Questionnaire
According to Roberts et al (2012), surveys are widely used in business and management
research. Surveys are often based around structured questionnaires. These are detailed
documents that ask the respondent to provide data in a highly ordered form. Qualitative
questionnaire surveys are sometimes used, but these are generally much more difficult to
process and interpret quickly. There are in-depth surveys attempting to go into much more detail.
In-depth surveys are much more likely to make use of a subjective qualitative element than
standard surveys. Robson (2002) considers questionnaire-based surveys provide a relatively
simple and straightforward approach to the study of attitudes, values, beliefs and motives.
61
In the present research, a qualitative survey questionnaire (as part of the focus-group
interview document) was used to elicit participants’ perceptions, orientations, awareness, and
demographic information. The researcher considers the findings from this qualitative survey
questionnaire can fruitfully triangulate with those from the focus-group interview.
Parts II, III and IV of the focus-group interview document in Appendix B relate to the
qualitative survey questionnaire.
In Part II, each participant was to state his/her perception towards the CSR of
organizations by ranking them from Best to Worst together with explanations for the ranking.
The ‘Attributes/Actions’ relating to each of the organizations were extracted from their annual
reports or websites. Out of the seven organizations four were on the list ‘Most Admired
Companies’ in respect of their social responsibility, ranked by FORTUNE in 2011. The
remaining three organizations represent those that are familiar to the participants. The
organizations are from different countries and in different industries. There were previous
research using annual report content analysis in CSR studies (Abbott and Monsen 1979;
Bowman 1976, 1978; Martin and Anterasian and Siehl, 1983; Wolfe, 1989, 1991), There was
also a study using real organizations in CSR study (Silberhorn and Warren, 2007); the study
was based on a qualitative content analysis of the CSR websites of 40 British and German
companies, and on a series of interviews with senior managers, to explore how large German
and British organizations public define CSR as well as why and how the respective notion of
CSR was developed.
In Part III, the CSRO instrument is based on Carroll’s framework of CSR (Carroll, 1979;
Carroll, 1991a, 1991b; Carroll, 1998, 1999b). Selecting this instrument, developed by Aupperle,
is due to its wide acceptance by the field (Burton & Hegarty, 1999; Carroll, 1979; Carroll, 1991a,
62
1991b; Carroll & Horton, 1994; Gatewood & Carroll, 1991; Swanson, 1999). It has been proven
a useful version (Aupperle et al., 1985; Ibrahim & Parsa, 2005; Ray, 2006; Smith et al., 2001).
Using a forced-choice design, the instrument of Aupperle (1982; 1984; Aupperle et al.,
1985) was used to measure CEOs’ CSR orientation. Each respondent is to allocate 10 points to
each of 20 sets of 4 CSR statements, the subjects identify their preferences and orientations.
The instrument has been found to have high reliability with Cronback alphas ranging from 0.84
to 0.90. (Aupperle 1984; Aupperle et al., 1985) Reliability and validity has been further
supported in other empirical studies using factor analysis (Burton & Hegarty, 1999).
In the present research, Aupperle’s instrument was adapted and modified (as shown in
Table 1 in summary form, and in Appendix B for the actual version) to carry 10 questions, each
respondent was to rank the relative importance they attached to each of the four statements in
each question. In each question, the 4 CSR statements correspond to the 4 types of
Responsibilities in Carroll’s framework. Four scores were given to the CSR statement the
respondent considered most important, and 1 score for the least important. Totally there were
10 sets of statements. For each participant, the total scores given for the 10 sets were 100.
In Part IV, each participant was to provide their demographic background information.
63
Table 1
Adapted CSR Research Instrument - 10 sets of 4 CSR statements (Aupperle, 1982, 1984)
Attributes of
Ethical
responsibility
Economic
responsibility
Legal
responsibility
 To perform in a
manner consistent with
expectations of
maximizing earnings
per share
 To monitor new
opportunities that can
enhance or improve
the organization’s
financial health
 Good corporate
citizenship be defined
as being as profitable
as possible
 Ensure a high level of
operating efficiency is
maintained
 To be committed to
being as financially
sound as possible
 Pursue those
opportunities which will
enhance earnings per
share
 Maintain a strong
competitive position
 Maintain a high level of
operating efficiency
 To view consistent
profitability as a useful
measure of corporate
performance
 Pursue those
opportunities which
provide the best rate of
return
 To perform in a
manner consistent
with expectations of
government and the
law
 To monitor new
opportunities that can
enhance or improve
the organization’s
compliance record
with local, country,
and international laws
 Good corporate
citizenship be defined
as doing what the law
expects
 Be a law-abiding
corporate citizen
 To be committed to
abiding by laws and
regulations
 Provide goods and/or
services which at
least meet minimal
legal requirements
 Comply with various
federal regulations
 Promptly comply with
new laws and court
rulings
 To view compliance
with the law as a
useful measure of
corporate
performance
 Comply fully and
honestly with enacted
laws, regulations, and
court rulings
 To perform in a
manner consistent
with expectations of
societal standards
and ethical norms
 To monitor new
opportunities that can
enhance or improve
the organization’s
moral and ethical
image in society
 Good corporate
citizenship be defined
as doing what is
expected morally and
ethically
 Recognize and
respect new or
evolving ethical/moral
norms adopted by
society
 To be committed to
moral and ethical
behaviour
 Avoid compromising
societal norms and
ethics in order to
achieve goals
 Recognize that the
ends do not always
justify the means
 Recognize that
corporate integrity
and ethical behavior
go beyond mere
compliance with the
laws and regulations
 To view compliance
with the norms, and
unwritten laws of
society as useful
measures
 Recognize that
society’s unwritten
laws and codes can
often be as important
as the written
64
Discretionary
responsibility
 To perform in a manner
consistent with the
philanthropic and charitable
expectations of society
 To monitor new
opportunities that can
enhance or improve the
organization’s ability to help
solve social problems
 Good corporate citizenship
be defined as providing
voluntary assistance to
charities and community
organizations
 Provide assistance to
private and public
educational institutions
 To be committed to
voluntary and charitable
activities
 Assist voluntarily with
projects which enhance a
community’s ‘quality of life’
 Assist the fine and
performing arts
 Maintain a policy of
increasing charitable and
voluntary efforts over time
 To view philanthropic
behavior as a useful
measure of corporate
performance
 Expect those organizational
members to participate in
voluntary and charitable
activities
3.3.5
Follow-up Phone Interview
About three months after the interview, the researcher successfully carried out a phone
interview with 79 out of 97 participants, response rate being 81.4%. Three days before the
phone interview, the researcher sent to each of the 97 participants an email notifying the phone
interview and stating the follow-up question for the said interview. The objective of the phone
interview is to get their feedback, on an individual basis, on job application decisions during the
intervening period, thus comparing with their perceptions intimated in the focus-group
discussions with their subsequent behaviour.
The participants’ responses are ‘confirmatory data collection’, to deepen insights into
and confirming (or disconfirming) patterns that seem to have appeared (Patton, 2002). The
sample of the email is at Appendix C.
3.4
Data Collection Process
3.4.1
Ethical Considerations
Research ethics, according to the Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) (2006)
“refers to the moral principles guiding research, from its inception through to completion and
publication of results and beyond”. Participants were told their participation in the research was
voluntary, also about the interview procedures and purpose, follow-up procedure, and
assurance on maintaining confidentiality of research records. They have every right to withdraw
from the study anytime. For the Part I focus-group interview discussions, students were
informed that they would be audio-taped, with prior explanations given to and consent secured
from the participants. The participants were also informed that they have the right to obtain a
copy of their audio-taped group discussions record, though they had to make such a request
immediately after the interview, as the audio-records would be destroyed after transcription.
65
The participants were asked for their willingness to sign an Informed Consent Form
incorporating the above elements (per Appendix A). With the said Form, participants would have
a trust environment within which to discuss.
Assurance of same ethicality and confidentiality was made to participants before the
follow-up phone interviews. Those participants providing feedback during the phone interview
signified their consent.
3.4.2
Focus-group Interview and Qualitative Questionnaire Survey, and
Follow-up Phone Interview Processes
There were a total of 15 focus-groups consisting of 97 participants in the study, each
group comprised between 5 and 8 participants, each focus-group interview was carried out
separately. Participants of each group were brought together in a classroom atmosphere with
which they were familiar, making them feel more secure and comfortable, thus conducive to
more descriptive and open discussions.
All the focus-group sessions were held between Oct and Nov 2011. Each session on
average last around 60 minutes. Before the start of each focus-group interview session, the
researcher explained the objective and procedures of the research, and informed consent (at
Appendix A) was obtained from each individual participant. Then, a printed copy of the 6-page
interview document (at Appendix B) was given to each participant, thereby started the interview
process by proceeding with Part I through Part IV. For Part I, group discussions were in Chinese
and audio-taped. During the whole process, the researcher was present as a facilitator in
answering any questions participants might have.
The researcher reminded the respondents to use their own knowledge, perception,
experience, beliefs and feelings to discuss/answer the focus-group questions as carried in the
interview document (at Appendix B).
66
During the focus-group interviews, the researcher informed the participants there would
be a phone-interview about 3 months later about the actual employment decisions. Three
months after the focus-group interviews, the researcher notified by email each of the 97
research participants (per Appendix C) there was going to be a follow-up phone interview in
English about their employment-choice decision. During the fourth and fifth days after the email,
the researcher called each of them by phone to gather their responses to the follow-up question.
The researcher recorded in writing their feedback verbatim during the conversation.
3.4.3
Credibility and Trustworthiness of the Study
Lincoln and Guba (1985) consider there are three contributing elements towards a
qualitative study’s credibility: 1) rigorous techniques and methods in gathering high quality data;
which is then carefully analyzed, with attention to validity, reliability and triangulation; 2) the
researcher’s credibility depending on his/her training, experience, track record, status, and
presentation of self; and 3) the researcher’s fundamental appreciation of naturalistic inquiry,
qualitative methods, inductive analysis and holistic thinking based on his/her philosophical belief
in the phenomenological paradigm.
To enhance the credibility of qualitative study, the result of qualitative study must be credible
through the procedures used (Owens, 1982) including:

triangulation — for verification, accuracy and the testing of perceptions, a number of
sources are used and cross-checked. Elements of triangulation can emerge from crosschecking across participants and comparisons with findings from different methods.
67

development of thick description — materials and information gathered should be
synthesised, integrated and related to make the description real and vivid for the reader.
A continual sorting, sifting, choosing, categorising and re-ordering of material from the
interviews and questionnaire survey resulted in the ‘thick description’.
“The validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative inquiry have more
to do with the information richness of the cases selected and the observational/analytical
capabilities of the researcher than with sample size” (Patton, 2002). On the other hand,
qualitative research is inherently multi-method in focus, or triangulation, evidencing an attempt
to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
Triangulation is an alternative to validation, revealing the true voices of the research participants
(Flick, 1998).
Multiple factors combine to answer the question of trustworthiness (Maykut &
Morehouse, 1994). Constant reflection in a journal by the researcher allows an introspective
look at his/her own subjectivities and biases. (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992).The researcher has also
kept a reflexive journal to this effect.
In the present research, criteria for trustworthiness and credibility have been adhered to.
3.4.4
Data Analysis and Interpretation
“Qualitative analysts say that, as they write their conclusions, they keep going back to
the cases; they reread field notes; and they listen again to interviews. Inductive analysis is built
on a solid foundation of specific, concrete, and detailed observations, quotations, documents,
and cases. As thematic structures and overarching constructs emerge during analysis, the
qualitative analyst keeps returning to fieldwork observations and interview transcripts, working
from the bottom up, staying grounded in the foundation of cases write-ups, and thereby
68
examining emergent themes and constructs in light of what they illuminate about the case
descriptions on which they are based. This is inductive analysis.” (Patton, 2002)
As mentioned, the focus-group interviews (Part I) were conducted in Chinese among
members, audio-taped, and then transcribed verbatim in Chinese, then coding was conducted
before translating into English selected coded transcripts of participants’ direct quotes or
key/relevant views and responses identified in the transcriptions. All the other data collected in
the focus-group interviews and the follow-up phone interviews were in English. These qualitative
and quantitative data made up the data sets for the present research which were then organized
and analysed in a holistic manner.
Qualitative analyses were carried out with the help of the software NVivo, while
quantitative analyses with Microsoft EXCEL. It is believed that these analysis tools can facilitate
the analytical process. The researcher got emergent insights, through sensitizing during the
whole data collection process and the subsequent interaction with the data.
Qualitative analyses were done mainly with content analysis to identify, code, categorize
and label the primary patterns/themes. The researcher ran through the verbatim transcriptions
and began deciphering the voluminous information into topics and files. Various types of data
were coded. They were then incorporated into a classification system. From this classification
process, the researcher was able to discern patterns and linkages of the data collected. Any
redundant information was sorted out, useful and remaining ones were fitted together, and data
was organized according to topics. Basically, the data coding and content analysis process was
adopted to make the mass of data accumulated into a manageable set.
Quantitative analyses were used to identify meaningful relationships or comparisons
among different variables in the data, results of which were compared to those from qualitative
69
analyses in a supplementary and/or complementary manner, thus enhancing the quality of the
analysis results.
Both analytical approaches, either alone or integrated, have enabled results to be
presented diagrammatically. This not only assisted the researcher in identifying findings during
the whole iterative analysis process, but also helped make the findings and conclusion more
comprehensible to readers.
Themes and categories from the above methods and data were then compared and
contrasted to find common themes, as well as to make conclusions relating to those research
questions under study. This is a convergence process, from collecting raw data, identifying
recurring regularities, revealing patterns, categories/themes, through determining the
substantive significance of the present research. However, the researcher had used his insights
and experience to bring together the emerging pieces to form a total experience. More details
of data analysis and interpretation will be covered in the Data Analysis and Findings Chapter.
3.5
Summary
This chapter has discussed the empirical research conducted for the inquiry, justifying
and defending the research design, research paradigm, research methods, research
participants, data collection and analysis methods, steps to ensure ethicality and credibility of
the study. With the total sample size of 97 participants in the focus-group interviews and a
favourable 81.4% response rate in the follow-up phone interview, coupled with the robust
methodology framework, it can be inferred meaningful results will emerge from the data analysis.
For the present research, some other reasonable research options have been
considered, for example, pure quantitative inquiry, large scale surveys, case studies, in-depth
surveys etc. The researcher considers these alternatives, alone or in combination, do not fit in
70
with the present study. Survey research is based on drawing a sample from a population. Largescale surveys allow basic standardised data to be collected in an economical way concerning
how many, how long or when. They are of limited use in the present research because the
researcher is interested in how or why questions, based on sense-making. The structured
questionnaire constrains respondents and gives little or no opportunity for them to articulate the
ways in which they understand the subject of interest. For in-depth personal interviews or case
studies, they are appropriate if the aim of the research is to investigate causal relationships
between variables and to explain a phenomenon. However, the time and resources required will
be a material constraining factor.
71
4.
4.1
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Based on the research design and methodology outlined above, data collection was
conducted followed by data analysis. This chapter first reviews the research design and
methodology, and stages of data collection as presented in previous chapter; then describes an
overview of data analysis process, data collected from focus-groups’ discussions,
questionnaires, phone-interviews. The objective of the focus-group interviews was to find out
participants’ ‘espoused values’ in CSRO and EA, which were than compared with the ‘values in
use’ through the phone-interview process, and through sense-making answers to the research
questions could be found. Based on these data collected, with the facilitation of computer
analysis software, participants’ demographics composition and distribution, categories and
themes of their views/responses in relation to the research questions were identified and
subsequently integrated, preparing for the final conclusions to be summarized in the following
and final chapter.
4.1.1 Review of Research Design and Methodology
The research design is a two-pronged mixed method, a combination of quantitative and
qualitative techniques, considered appropriate in fulfilling the research objectives and
addressing the research questions. Qualitative approaches in the form of focus-group interviews
(audio-taped) and phone-interviews were used to inductively and holistically understand
participants’ experiences, attitudes, feelings, beliefs, opinions whereas quantitative approach in
the form of questionnaires were used to answer basic questions ‘how often’ or ‘how many’ or
‘how much’ (Roberts et al, 2012). The researcher also kept a journal recording field
observations and issues arose at the scenes which were not captured on the audio-tapes.
72
Mixing these two approaches can strengthen the research by assembling a comprehensive and
complete picture of the social dynamic of the context-specific settings. Situational
responsiveness and insights about the phenomenon under research could also be attained by
making sense through reporting what were done, why they were done, and what the
implications are for findings.
McInnes and Beech and Caestecker and Macintosh and Ross (2006) suggest “one way
to understand these identity processes is through exploration of the narratives through which
people attribute meaning to themselves and others” and “we regard one of the functions of
identify-narratives as answering key questions which enable actors to position themselves in the
situation.”
Furthermore, this two-pronged mixed method has provided for means to triangulate the
research, thus sense-making the results. A cross-data review was conducted through this
mixed-method approach. However, the objective was not to demonstrate these qualitativelygenerated data and quantitatively-generated data would yield the same result, but rather to test
for coherence of potential explanations. According to Patton (2002), different kinds of data may
yield somewhat different results because different types of enquiry are sensitive to different realworld nuances. Thus, understanding differences in findings across different kinds of data can be
illuminating. It should not be viewed as weakening the results’ credibility, but rather as offering
opportunities for deeper insight into the phenomenon under study.
4.1.2 Review of Stages of Data Collection
Data collection was carried out in two stages — focus-group interviews between October
and November 2011, and follow-up phone-interviews about three months after the focus-group
interviews.
73
In the focus-group interviews, there were 97 participants spread among 15 focus-groups
later classified into 6 categories in various study majors and study modes. They were all
undergraduate students in their senior year of study, roughly half of them would graduate in
January 2012 and the other half in the middle of 2012. In the follow-up phone-interviews
conducted about 3 months thereafter, the researcher successfully reached and obtained
responses/views from 79 students.
4.2
Overview of Data Analysis
Audio-taped focus-group discussions were transcribed verbatim in Chinese; then coding
was conducted before translating into English selected coded transcripts of participants’ direct
quotes or key/relevant views and responses identified in the transcriptions; followed by
categorizing, coding data and inputting them into NVivo 9 software. This software helps
organize and content-analyse responses and views from the focus-group interview discussions
and phone-interviews. Its flexible nature enables nodes to be reorganized to identify themes as
they emerged. It also helps to uncover subtle connections and patterns. Integrated with the
researcher’s interaction with the data, insights and sensitization, thereby emergent categories
and themes were subsequently derived, to be covered in the following Summary and
Conclusion Chapter.
During the transcription and translation processes, the researcher tried to accurately
grasp the participants/respondents’ meanings in words said. The language used carried the
unique cultural meaning of special terms.
The quantitative analysis part was aided by Microsoft EXCEL software to generate
descriptive statistics in table form or visual representations of demographics characteristics of
the participants/respondents as well as identify and present meaningful
74
relationships/comparisons among different variables in the data which can be expressed
quantitatively, for example, the ranking results from the questionnaires.
Coding
Data coded into the NVivo software are related to/in alignment with the research
questions. Coding is described as “the process of defining what the data is about.” (Bryant &
Charmaz, 2007) Merriam (1998) considers the coding process as the choice of a shorthand
word, phrase or number that is assigned to a specifically identified section of data, so that
similar data elements can be easily located during analysis.
According to Strauss and Corbin (1990), there are three approaches to coding:

Open Coding: identifying, naming, categorizing and describing instances found within
the interview transcripts, field notes from observations, or other documents. The
researcher actually reads each line and determines ‘What exactly does it mean?’

Axial Coding: the process of relating codes (categories and properties) to each other,
via a combination of inductive and deductive thinking, the researcher emphasizes
casual relationships by fitting things into a basic frame of generic relationships.

Selective Coding: process of choosing one category to be the core category, and
relating all other categories to that category.
In the present research, Open Coding was used to generate themes and categories
based on the transcribed data. By identifying all the responses and views from the
participants/respondents, the researcher was then able to develop categories for emergent
themes. As suggested by Merriam (1998), Axial Coding was also used to locate similarity
among responses/views. The researcher could then determine under which code each relevant
75
view/response should be located. This process leads to developing categories. Dey (1999)
considers category development depends on the skills of the researcher to interpret and
conceptualize the data. A code was assigned to a specific sentence or paragraph as a ‘text unit’
related to a particular response/view. When another text unit bore the same response/view, it
was assigned the same code. Through an iteration process, the resulting codes were then
analyzed and developed into patterns of categories and themes.
Categorizing is “the analytic step in selecting certain codes as having overriding
significance or abstracting common themes and patterns in several codes into an analytic
concept.” (Bryant & Charmax, 2007) This process should be ‘data driven’ (Lee, 2002), focus on
participants’/respondents’ perceptions and views, rather than any strongly preconceived notions
or conceptulisations.
In the current research, the coded data were first classified into a set of primary ‘Parent
Nodes’ and related data under their ‘Child Nodes’ based on the data collected from the
questions in the focus-group interviews and the follow-up phone-interviews. Then when certain
linkages, patterns or categories were identified of significance based on the comparatively high
percentage in appearance of text units and links associated or apparent explanatory power of
other nodes, coupled with the researcher’s interpretations and sense-making, these primary
Parent Nodes and their Child Nodes were further re-arranged or refined in several stages to
form the final set of Parent Nodes and Child Nodes. The Parent Nodes are shown in Figure 4 (in
Appendix E), and Parent Nodes and Child Nodes (a partial view, as the whole view will take up
a very large space) are shown in Figure 5 in Appendix E.
4.3
Focus-Groups Composition
There are 15 focus-groups consisting of 97 students. An overview of their groupings and
individual group compositions are shown in Table 2 and a matrix table with ‘ethics training’ and
76
‘study major’ as differentiating variables is in Table 3. Each focus-group in itself is
homogeneous in nature. The demographics data were obtained during the focus-group
interviews, in relation to Part IV of the focus group interview.
Table 2
Focus Groups Distribution - overview
Cat.
No.
of FG
No. of
participants
Male
Female
FT
study
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
3
3
2
2
3
2
15
20
16
15
12
19
15
97
3
7
5
3
15
10
43
17
9
10
9
4
5
54


PT
study
Business
major






Business
(industryoriented)
major


Ethics
course
taken







Abbreviations:
Cat - category
FG - focus group
FT - full time
PT - part time
As shown in Table 3, representations of the 6 Cats are:
Cat. 1 — full-time study mode, business major, ethics course taken
Cat. 2 — full-time study mode, business major, no ethics course taken
Cat. 3 — part-time study mode, business major, ethics course taken
Cat. 4 — part-time study mode, business major, no ethics course taken
Cat. 5 — full-time study mode, business (industry-oriented) major, ethics course taken
Cat. 6 — full-time study mode, business (industry-oriented) major, no ethics course taken
77
NO
ethics
course
taken

For the major division between ‘Business major’ and ‘Business (industry-oriented) major’
categories, the researcher has reviewed the respective programme curriculum, programme
aims and objectives, intended programme learning outcomes; and found the ‘Business major’
ones equip graduates with knowledge and skills in those respective business functions, which
normally every business organization would have. Whereas, the ‘Business (industry-oriented)
major’ programmes prepare graduates to work in those industries involved, as evidenced by
either a 500-hour industry-related practicum requirement or professional bodies’
recognition/accreditation. It is believed this division/categorization can help identify ideas or
insights, if any, of participants in the present research.
Table 3
Focus Groups Distribution - by study major/previous ethics study
Ethics Course Taken
FT
Business major
PT
Business major
FT
Business (industryoriented) major
Total
Cat. 1
3 FGs
(20)
Cat. 3
2 FGs
(15)
Cat. 5
3 FGs
(19)
NO Ethics Course
Taken
Cat. 2
3 FGs
(16)
Cat. 4
2 FGs
(12)
Cat. 6
2 FGs
(15)
8 FGs
(54)
7 FGs
(43)
( ) total number of participants
To answer the research questions, previous ‘ethics training’ and ‘study major’ are
used to classify the 97 participants into six categories. As shown in Table 3, among the full-time
and part-time business major students (comprising 4 categories), 56% of them have taken an
ethics course before. Similarly, 56% of the business (industry-oriented) major students
78
(comprising the remaining 2 categories) have taken an ethics course before. This categorization
is meaningful in that in the Hong Kong tertiary education institutions offering locally-awarded
programmes, traditionally speaking, an ethics course is commonly included in a business
undergraduate programme curriculum while not in a business (industry-oriented) one. However,
some overseas educational institutions offering their business (industry-oriented) programmes
in Hong Kong have an ethics course included in their curriculum. This is the whole set up of
data source in the present research. Purposeful sampling of this kind enables information-rich
cases to be studied in depth, thus illuminating the research questions under study. It seems that
little prior research has been done using this kind of classification/categorization in relation to
the current research.
The researcher considers using students of business majors or business (industryoriented) majors as samples fits the purpose the present research want the samples to serve,
having considered the questions to be asked, the resources availability and constraints being
faced. Hong Kong has become a financial centre and business hub in the Far East, economic
and business activities have been flourishing. During the last hundred years, increasing
numbers of working population there have engaged in business activities in one way or another.
Thus, it is expected the research results are going to be more informative and relevant to the
research context as compared to students of other majors. Though using samples of other study
majors may reveal different research findings, which could be pursued in future research.
The next section will present an overview of the research participants’ demographics
data and their analyses by category, age, gender, study mode, study major, previous ethics
study
79
4.4
Participants’ Demographics Data
4.4.1 Distributions - by Participant Category, Age and Gender
The 6 categories comprising 97 research participants are summarized in Table 4 below.
A further breakdown of their distributions by age and gender is presented below.
Their age distributions are presented in Table 5 below and Figure 6 in Appendix E.
There are 76% of them aged between 21 and 25, and 94% between 21 and 30. It can be seen
the great majority of participants are working or soon-to-be working adults in early stage of their
career.
Their gender distributions are shown in Table 6 below and Figures 7, 8 and 9 in
Appendix E. Gender distribution is the same between male and female in the 21-25 age bracket,
with female proportion relatively higher in the 26-30 age bracket.
Table 4
Demographics of Participants - by category
Cat. 1 participants
Total number
Male
Female
20
3
17
Age (21-25)
3
16
Age (26-30)
Age (31-35)
Age (over 35)
16
7
9
Age (21-25)
7
9
Age (26-30)
Age (31-35)
Age (over 35)
15
5
10
Age (21-25)
2
1
Age (26-30)
2
9
Age (31-35)
Age (over 35)
1
1
Cat. 2 participants
Total number
Male
Female
Cat. 3 participants
Total number
Male
Female
80
Cat. 4 participants
Total number
Male
Female
12
3
9
Age (21-25)
Age (26-30)
Age (31-35)
3
Age (over 35)
2
5
19
15
4
Age (21-25)
15
4
Age (26-30)
Age (31-35)
Age (over 35)
15
10
5
Age (21-25)
10
5
Age (26-30)
Age (31-35)
Age (over 35)
2
Cat. 5 participants
Total number
Male
Female
Cat. 6 participants
Total number
Male
Female
Table 5
Distribution of Participants - by age
Age
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 - 35
over 35
(Total)
No.
74
17
3
3
97
Distribution
76 %
18 %
3%
3%
100 %
Table 6
Distribution of Participants - by gender
Age
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 - 35
over 35
(Total)
No. of male
37
2
3
1
43
Distribution
86%
5%
7%
2%
100%
81
No. of female
37
15
2
54
Distribution
68%
28%
4%
100%
4.4.2 Distribution - by Study Mode and Study Major
Participants’ study modes summary is shown in Table 7 below, in Figures 10 and 11 in
Appendix E; study majors in Table 8 below and Figure 12 in Appendix E.
Full-time-mode study participants contributed 73% of the total, with roughly equal split
between male and female. On the other hand, female participants much outnumbered their
male counterparts in the part-time study mode.
Table 7
Distribution of Participants - by study mode
Age
Full-time
No.
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 - 35
over 35
(Total)
35
1
36
Male
Distribution*
49%
1.5%
Part-time
Female
No.
Distribution*
34
1
35
48%
1.5%
No.
2
2
3
7
Male
Distribution*
8%
8%
11%
No.
Female
Distribution*
3
14
2
19
11%
54%
8%
* out of the totals: 71 (full-time) and 26 (part-time)
In the present research, ‘business majors’ include disciplines in human resource
management, marketing and public relations, finance, business management; ‘business
(industry-oriented) majors’ include logistics and supply chain management, travel industry
management, and hospitality management. A summary distribution of them is shown in Table 8
below. Business-major participants made up a great majority of 65%.
82
Table 8
Distribution of Participants - by study major
Study Major
Human resource management
Marketing and public relations
Finance
Business management
Logistics and supply chain
management
Travel Industry and Hospitality
management
Classification
No.
Distribution
business
business
business
business
business (industry-oriented)
20
16
15
12
19
21%
17%
15%
12%
20%
business (industry-oriented)
15
15%
97
100%
Total
4.4.3 Distribution - by Previous Ethics Study
Previous ethics study is a key variable in answering some of the research questions and
also a differentiating factor in categorizing participants in this study. As analyzed above, among
the full-time and part-time business-major students (comprising 4 categories), 56% of them
have taken an ethics course before. Similarly, 56% of the business (industry-oriented) major
students (comprising the remaining 2 categories) have taken an ethics course before. Their
detailed distributions are shown in Table 9 below. From study-mode perspective, participants
taken an ethics course outnumbered the non-takers by around 11% across the ‘FT-business
major’, ‘PT-business major’, and ‘FT business (industry-oriented) major’ categories. Details are
shown in Figure 13 in Appendix E.
83
Table 9
Distribution of Participants - by previous ethics study
Major
classification
Business
Business
(industry-oriented)
(total)
Study mode
full-time
part-time
full-time
No. of participants taken
an ethics course
20
15
19
No. of participants NOT
taken an ethics course
16
12
15
54
43
4.4.4 Summary
The 97 participants consisting of 15 focus-groups classified into 6 categories represent
the whole data set for this present research. Attributes of ‘ study major’, ‘study mode’ and
‘previous ethics study’ made up the classifying variables for the 6 categories.
Analyses above reveal:

age and gender distributions were not significantly different across the age groups
where the bulk of participants lay

full-time mode study participants contributed 73% to the total, with roughly equal split
between male and female. Female participants much outnumbered their male
counterparts in the part-time study mode.

business-major participants made up 65% of the participants

among the full-time and part-time business major students (comprising 4 categories),
56% of them have taken an ethics course before.

56% of the business (industry-oriented) major students (comprising the remaining 2
categories) have taken an ethics course before.
84

participants taken an ethics course outnumbered the non-takers by around 11%
across the ‘FT-business major’, ‘PT-business major’, and ‘FT business (industryoriented) major’ categories
Based on the different demographic backgrounds among the 6 categories of participants,
the next section will present the responses/views from the focus-group discussions.
4.5
Responses/Views from Focus-Groups
The 15 focus groups’ discussions were conducted on a group basis, each lasting about
60 minutes in a classroom setting very familiar to the participants on the campuses where they
studied. The discussions were audio-taped with the prior informed consent obtained and with
relevant ethical considerations taken, with the presence of the researcher as the facilitator to
answer questions or make clarifications if needed. A 6-page survey questionnaire mainly
qualitative in nature for each participant, as shown in Appendix B, was used. The whole
questionnaire consists of Parts I to IV, some questions therein were responded on an individual
basis in written form on the spaces provided in the questionnaire, the others on a group basis
and audio-taped. The questions were intended to gather participants’ views/responses in
relation to the research questions.
Part I relates to EA, Part II to CSRO-perception, Part III to CSRO-importance/awareness,
and Part IV to demographics data as covered in the section above. There were enjoyable
interactions among participants. In that social context, the participants contributed and shared
their own views and comments in the discussions. They got to hear each fellow participant’s
responses and made additional comments beyond their own original responses. Some of the
participants in a group were strangers to each other. Thus the views and comments shared
were typically more specific, focused, meaningful and animated. As the atmosphere and
85
environment under the focus-group interviews were conducted were quite relaxing and free,
therefore participants were very active and lively in sharing their views/comments.
The following sub-sections present summaries of participants’ responses/views identified,
by Part and/or question as per the sequence in the Focus-Group Interviews. These identified
responses/views were obtained through the observations, perception, interpretation, judgment
and emergent insights of the researcher. Their inclusions summarized below are not necessarily
based on the number of participants’ responses to certain factors/issues, but rather the
importance or significance participants attached to them as reflected by their expressed
attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences and opinions, during the interviews. Participants’ quotes,
either in their original English version or translated into English from verbatim Chinese
transcriptions, are summarized below. For each of the 5 questions in Part I, the ‘percentages’ in
the Tables represent the number of views against each type of organization made by the
participants in that Cat. In the quotes from participations, whenever there are any names of
organization involved, ‘xxx company’ is used to keep their anonymity.
4.5.1.1
Part I - Question 1
The question is:
“If there were no restriction on your employment decision, what would be the top five (5)
DREAM (i.e. desirable) organizations you would like to work for, and why?”
4.5.1.1.1
Data and Analysis
In sharing their ‘public talks’ about which top 5 organizations they would like to work for,
participants either named some specific organizations (for example, xxx Company) or types of
organizations (for example, government, airlines). Based on the data shared by the participants
during the discussions on the 5 questions in this Part, the researcher classified those names or
86
types of organizations into 5 types, namely, Small- to Medium- sized, Public-listed, Multinational
Corporation (‘MNC’), Civil Service or Government-Funded, Others. This classification was then
applied to all the 5 questions in this Part.
The percentage distribution of ‘desirable organizations to work for (if there was no
restriction on your employment decision)’ is summarized in Table 10 below.
During the discussions, the researcher perceived a kind of fantasy feeling among
participants. The ways the discussions went were very energetic and joyful, seems like the
employment world was open to them to choose where and for whom they work. Sometimes
there were debates and arguments before coming with the reasons on a group basis.
Public-listed, MNC, Civil Service or Government-Funded organizations are what Cat. 1
participants would dream to work for, if there were no restriction on their employment decisions.
However, among these 3 types, MNC makes up the highest percentage. The more significant
reasons include: these MNCs would offer attractive salary and staff benefits, more international
exposure, high job security, nice working environment. Other reasons include participants’
personal interest in the job offer, organizational involvement in social responsible activities and
good organizational image.
MNC also represents the most-favoured organization for Cat. 2 participants, the nextfavoured one being Civil Service or Government-funded ones. The more significant reasons
provided include: those organizations are able to offer good learning/training opportunities,
attractive salary and staff benefits, good promotion prospects, more international exposure, high
prestige by working there, better management style/structure. Patterns of organization type and
reasons are similar in Cat. 3 and Cat. 4 participants.
In the case of Cat. 5 and Cat. 6 participants, MNC and Civil Service or Governmentfunded organizations top their most-favoured list by most participants, and the more significant
reasons they provided basically are similar to those in Cats. 1 through 4, but with some new
87
reasons: they prefer organizations with high profitability and diversified, and by working for them,
one can contribute to society.
It seems to suggest all participants, in their future employment, look for things or
organizational attributes conducive to participants’ personal benefits and future development,
without considering their own personal competency and capabilities in relation to the job.
The following are some quotes from participants relating to the above findings.
“No matter what kinds of jobs you have with the civil service, working there is the best
because of good salary and benefits. They have different jobs available for different
qualifications” # (this would be coded/classified as 'Espoused value' under the theme
'RER-financial incentives, per Appendix D)
“Though I don’t know much about XXX company, I learnt from internet that this
company offers employees a lot of freedom and good salary’
#
(this would be
coded/classified as 'Espoused value' under the themes 'RER - job nature – financial
incentives, per Appendix D)
“I would like to work for XXX company because of my personal interest. Besides, it is a
world-renowned international company in this industry. By engaging in such industry, my
life exposure and future career development will be much enhanced.” # (this would be
coded/classified as 'Espoused value' under the themes 'Job applicant's background –
RER – reputation and image', per Appendix D)
#
This coding/classification approach has applied to the rest of the analysis in this Chapter.
88
Table 10
Cat.1 participants (20)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium- sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
14%
79%
7
100%
Cat.2 participants (16)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
12%
12%
44%
25%
7%
100%
Cat. 3 participants (15)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
20%
70%
10%
100%
Cat. 4 participants (12)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
40%
40%
10%
10%
100%
89
Cat. 5 participants (19)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
19%
12%
25%
25%
19%
100%
Cat. 6 participants (15)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
4.5.1.1.2
Percentage
30%
40%
30%
100%
Results Summary
All the significant reasons behind finding an employer attractive are predominantly on
what the organizations can offer to participants, for example, personal interest in certain jobs;
good financial incentives; benefits/satisfaction from those organizations’ management
style/structure; good organizational reputation and image; well-in-place workforce development
strategy; pleasant job nature; and even whether the work location is near where participants live.
The findings quite tally with previous research results that an organization’s reputation or image
(Belt and Paolillo, 1982), recruitment and workforce development strategies (Greening and
Turban, 2000; Kraft and Singhapakdi, 1995), geographical location (Turban and Keon, 1993),
internal management structure (Greenhaus et al., 1978), leadership style (Schneider, 1987),
organizational attributes (Turban et al., 1998) are influencing factors of EA. From their
discussions, the researcher got the interpretation and insights that participants considered these
90
factors/provision quite important and every responsible employer should normally provide. It
seems that an organization’s social responsibility in the form of Carroll’s 4 components only
make up a very very low position on participants’ ranking of employer attractiveness.
Furthermore, this phenomenon applies to all the 6 categories of participants, which may suggest
prior ethics study does not have any impact in the context of question 1.
4.5.1.2
Part I - Question 2
The question is:
“Given the actual situations you are in, what are then the top five (5) (i.e. desirable)
organizations you would like to work for, and why?”
4.5.1.2.1
Data and Analysis
The percentage distribution of ‘desirable organizations to work for (under actual
situations)’’ is summarized in Table 11 and Figure 15 below.
As compared with Question 1, participants turned more practical in employment choice.
Cat. 1 participants’ most-preferred types of organizations quite evenly fall between Public-listed
and Civil service or Government-funded, some in Small- to Medium-sized, but MNC still
outnumbers the other two types. With HRM as their study major, they perceived their
employability would be much enhanced if they look for different types of organizations under
real life situations. The more significant reasons provided are quite similar to those for Question
1, but with some new ones, including: non-profit making organizations, big scale or business
operations, having good ethics.
For Cat. 2 participants, the mix of desirable organizations under actual situations turns
out to be vastly different from those under no-restriction situations. More participants chose
Public-listed ones. There are some new and distinguishing reasons put forward by Cat. 2
91
participations when compared to those for Question 1. They looked for less demanding work,
steady pay raise, working harmony among employees, work nature compatible with study major,
seniors respecting their subordinates. Experiences and comments during the discussions
greatly focused on colleagues’ working relationship and senior-subordinate relationship.
Working harmony and due respect to each other were considered important to them.
Similarly, for Cats. 3 and 4 participants, their respective mix of desirable organizations
under actual situations are quite different from those under no-restriction situations. This seems
to reflect participants’ practicality under actual situation. Also similar are the reasons they put
forward.
Again, the respective mix of desirable organizations under actual situations is quite
different from those under no-restriction situations for Cats 5 and 6 participants. Also nearly the
same are the reasons behind. They were full-time students with no solid working experience,
the views and comments were often quoted from what they had encountered in part-time jobs.
The following are some quotes from participants relating to the above findings.
“XXX company fits my field of study”
“XXX company, apart from property, has other kinds of business. As marketing is my
major, I would like to work in its marketing department. Its welfare and benefits are OK,
promotion prospects high. I can learn a lot as the company has a lot of departments.
Many departments hold events and gatherings for staff.”
“I would focus on salary when I look for which companies to work for. That’s why I prefer
investment manager at banks which offer good salary. The package would also include
commission. The more customers and business I got, the higher will be my income. It is
challenging to me.”
92
“The XXX company has many brands. They encourage employees to be creative and
innovative, which makes working there a fun. I consider these attributes very important.
They give you high flexibility, and good working environment, seniors treat their
subordinates with respect. The promotion prospect is good and there are lots of
opportunities to learn.”
“I like working for big companies, people’s perceptions on me will be better, I will feel
better, more challenging to me.”
Table 11
Cat. 1 participants (20)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
5%
28%
39%
28%
100%
Cat. 2 participants (16)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
6%
50%
25%
19%
100%
Cat. 3 participants (15)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
32%
50%
11%
7%
100%
93
Cat. 4 participants (12)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
6%
35%
35%
24%
100%
Cat. 5 participants (19)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
20%
40%
10%
30%
100%
Cat. 6 participants (15)
Desirable organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
17%
25%
8%
50%
100%
94
Figure 15
4.5.1.2.2
Results Summary
In terms of mix of desirable organizations, the patterns are quite different between ‘under
no restriction’ and ‘under actual’ situations across the 6 Cats. participants. In reality, they
like to work for Public-listed and Civil service/Government-funded organizations, as
reflected in Figure 14. However, the more significant employer-attractiveness
consideration factors remain much alike under the two situations, that is, participants
mainly concerned what their future employers could give them, e.g. good self-image by
working for an organizational having good organizational image, rather than participants’
personal interest. There were some new factors emerged from some participants: large
95
organizational size and scale of operations, non-profit making operations, having good
ethics; harmonious working relationship among fellow colleagues and with seniors. This
phenomenon tallies with the interpretations and insights obtained from Question 1, that
is, participants considered these factors/provision benefitting their own well-being quite
important and every responsible employer should normally provide.
The findings are quite in alignment with previous research findings: structural
attributes (such as decentralized decision-making) do influence EA (Turban and
Keon,1993), preference for organizations which match applicants’ own values
(Backhaus et al., 2002; Bhattacharya et al., 2008), preference towards organizations that
are socially responsible or has high CSP (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001; Albinger and
Freeman, 2000; Backhaus et al., 2002; Phillips, 2008; Puncheva-Michelotti and
Michelotti, 2009; Smith et al., 2004; Turban and Greening, 1997).
4.5.1.3
Part I - Question 3
The question is:
“If there were no restriction on your employment decision, what are the worst five (5) (i.e.
undesirable) organizations you would NOT like to work for, and why?”
4.5.1.3.1
Data and Analysis
The percentage distribution of ‘undesirable organizations to work for (if there was no
restriction on your employment decision)’ is summarized in Table 12 below.
During the course of discussions, most of the participants were negatively disposed at
some specific or types of organizations. Their sentiments were a big contrast to those when
discussing on questions 1 and 2. Based on their real-life experiences or encounters or press
96
reports or even from sharing from people they knew, the participants across the 6 Cats. had
quite negative perceptions of some specific or types of organizations.
With the exception of Civil service or Government-funded organizations, Cat. 1
participants considered all the others, namely, Small- to medium-sized, Public-listed, and MNC,
undesirable. The sensemaking that occurred frequently in discussions include: they had to work
overtime a lot; under constant threat of job redundancy; unfair treatment by employers; with low
salary; have to cheat outsiders at work; bad corporate reputation.
Cat. 2 participants were more vocal in expressing their thoughts, they rated Public-listed
organizations as undesirable. They were negatively disposed at the ways these Public-listed
organizations run their businesses. For example, they are the monopolists in their industry,
controlling prices for their services/goods supplied, thus limiting people’s choice. Because of
these organizations’ enormous bargaining power in the Hong Kong society, coupled with the
current regulatory framework, there is not much citizens at large can do. These organizations
follow the laws and regulations, but try to make use of the loop-holes, like, laying off staff
without advance notice whenever business situations have not been or are not going to be
favourable. Externally unethical practices towards society and their various stakeholders were
perceived to be prevalent. Internal responsibilities as a responsible-employer have not been
discharged, like employees were pushed to meet performance targets at the expense of
employees’ health, or even scolded or unfairly treated by seniors.
The types of ‘undesirable organization’ combination in Cats 3 through 6’ do not follow a
certain pattern, also when compared to those in Cats 1 and 2. However, the reasons put
forward are quite similar across the 6 Cats but some new factors identified. Cat. 3 considered
these organizations offering no long-term job-commitment to employees; Cat. 4 considered
these organizations hurting the public at large by manipulating market prices, and maximizing
97
their profit at the expense of employees’ benefits and welfare, thus lacking of sympathy and
CSR. Cat. 5 used ‘no corporate science’ as a descriptive while Cat. 6 was mindful of the harm
these organizations have brought to society through low quality services/goods.
The following are some quotes from participants relating to the above findings.
“xxx company levies unreasonable charges on its customers.”
“Realty organizations under the control of xxx tycoon control and manipulate property
prices.”
“Shipping companies are unethical, always requiring employees to work overtime, thus
without any spare time left, just like selling yourself to those companies.”
“xxx Bank always lays off staff mainly to maintain its profit margin”
“xxx company and xxx company collude in cheating customers.”
“xxx company treats new recruits very bad, but is good to those employees with long
service”
Table 12
Cat. 1 participants (20)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
38%
18%
44%
100%
Cat. 2 participants (16)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Percentage
60%
28%
12%
98
Others
100%
Cat. 3 participants (15)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
25%
38%
31%
6%
100%
Cat. 4 participants (12)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
19%
56%
13%
12%
100%
Cat. 5 participants (19)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
30%
40%
10%
20%
100%
Cat. 6 participants (15)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
66%
17%
17%
100%
99
4.5.1.3.2
Results Summary
Participants across the 6 Cats. voiced out their particularly great dissatisfaction at Smallto medium-sized, Public-listed and MNC organizations. Similar among these organizations
cover the ways they ran their operations and affected both internal and external stakeholders,
for example, employees had to work overtime a lot; under constant threat of job redundancy;
unfair treatment by employers; bad corporate reputation; cheating customers. However, the
major difference is in participants’ level of negative perceptions: if an organization is under the
control of certain business tycoons or wealthy people in HK, most of the participants considered
that organization more undesirable, largely because of its bad organizational image.
Their reasons behind the undesirability can be classified from two perspectives: external,
internal. External reasons include the organizations lacking in CSR; monopolizing markets;
controlling market prices; cheating outsiders through legal loopholes; unethical practices; and
activities hurting society; cheating outsiders via employees; bad corporate reputation. Internal
reasons revolve around organizations lacking in responsibilities as a responsible-employer;
inhumane treatment of employees; low job security; no corporate conscience; profit
maximization at the expense of employees. This very much mirrors the analyses results in
Questions 1 and 2.
The findings indirectly support the previous research results on importance of CSR in
modern corporate world as a result of the corporate scandals ENRON, Arthur Andersen,
WorldCom, Adelphia, and Xerox (Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2002; Ibrahim et al., 2007). However,
findings seem to be different from previous research findings that business students lack a
thorough understanding of how ethical conduct and CSR affect organizational effectiveness
(Kraft, 1991).
100
4.5.1.4
Part I - Question 4
“Given the actual situation you are in, what are then the worst five (5) (i.e. undesirable)
organizations you would NOT like for work for, and why?”
4.5.1.4.1
Data and Analysis
The percentage distribution of ‘undesirable organizations to work for (under actual
situation)’ is summarized in Table 13 and Figure 16 below.
For Cat. 1, Public-listed organizations and MNC make up the majority of undesirable
organizations, which tallies with the findings in Question 3. The more significant reasons
provided are much alike those in Question 3 in that participants focused on the unfavourable
welfare and treatments afforded to employees.
For Cat. 2, the pattern of undesirable organizations is different from that in Question 3.
Largely similar to Cat. 1, most commonly occurring reasons relate to undesirable, unfair or
unethical treatments towards employees, in areas of welfare/benefits and internal management,
and bad corporate reputation. Very little was mentioned about CSR.
The respective combinations of unfavourable organization types between Cat. 3 and Cat.
4 are quite similar, unfavourable towards Small- to Medium-sized and Public-listed ones. The
combinations are not materially different from the corresponding results in Question 3. So are
the reasons offered.
For Cat. 5 and Cat 6, combinations of organization types turn out vastly different from
those in Question 3. The underpinning responses appear to lay predominant emphasis on how
negative or perceived-to-be unfavourable impacts on employees’ working conditions,
remuneration package. Other factors like unethical practices received scant attention.
101
The following are some quotes from participants relating to the above findings.
“I have bad perception of xxx group of companies because its owner has bad reputation
in treating their employees and shareholders, cheating customers, having bad word of
mouth”
“There were many incidents of employee committing suicide cases in xxx company.
There must be some problems, the company evaded responsibility towards employees”
“The salespersons in xxx companies have to meet sales quota, sometimes have to
unethically take away sales from their fellow colleagues. You have to stand for 8 to 10
hrs a day at work”
“At xxx company, the lunch hour was just about 10 minutes out of the 30 minutes
formally allowed; also uniform-changing time was not counted towards your working
hours”
Table 13
Cat. 1 participants (20)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
33%
47%
20%
100%
Cat. 2 participants (16)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
25%
33%
42%
100%
102
Cat. 3 participants (15)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
34%
50%
8%
8%
100%
Cat. 4 participants (12)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
30%
40%
10%
20%
100%
Cat. 5 participants (19)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
46%
15%
15%
24%
100%
Cat. 6 participants (15)
Undesirable Organizations to work for
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
43%
57%
100%
103
Figure 16
4.5.1.4.2
Results Summary
As mentioned above, it shows employer attractiveness influencing factors were vividly
brought out and identified from the negative perspective. Comparing the analyses results
between Questions 3 and 4, a general phenomenon of undesirable organizations is derived.
Participants found Small- to Medium-sized and Public-listed ones undesirable to work for,
especially the former. When comparing Figure 15 and Figure 16, it shows, under actual
situations, Civil-service or Government-funded ones seem to be the most desirable, Small- to
Medium-sized the least desirable. Public-listed and MNC can be desirable or undesirable —
desirable if they offer good package, employee welfare and benefits, learning and exposure
opportunities, good organizational image, and CSR; undesirable if they are monopolists in
markets whereby their practices pose harm/unfairness to public; having bad corporate
104
reputation; making use of legal loopholes and engaging in unethical activities. However,
between desirable and undesirable organization under actual situations, there are differences
across different Cats, especially marked in Civil-service or Government-funded ones and MNCs.
Same as findings above, participants put much weight on the responsible-employer perception
in determining an employer’s levels of desirability.
The findings support the previous empirical evidence that individuals prefer seeking
employment with organizations that are socially responsible or has high CSP than those that are
not or lower in standards (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001; Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Backhaus et
al., 2002; Phillips, 2008; Puncheva-Michelotti and Michelotti, 2009; Smith et al., 2004; Turban
and Greening, 1997). Also potential job applicants will consider factors that include
environmental protection, product quality, and employee relations etc. (Greening and Turban,
2000).
4.5.1.5
Part I - Question 5(a) (Question 1 vs. Question 3)
Question 1
“If there were no restriction on your employment decision, what would be the top five (5)
DREAM (i.e. desirable) organizations you would like to work for, and why?”
Question 3
“If there were no restriction on your employment decision, what are the worst five (5) (i.e.
undesirable) organizations you would NOT like to work for, and why?”
4.5.1.5.1
Data and Analysis
The purposes of this comparison are to triangulate the findings here with those in
Questions 1 and 3 (i.e. differentiating between desirable and undesirable organizations as future
105
employers, if there were no restrictions), and try to identify if there are any new factors involved
by phrasing the question in a different manner.
Through this contrasting approach, similar reasons were found as shown above. Some
new and more significant employment-attractiveness influencing factors were identified, they are:
degree of fitness between job requirements and study major; whether the organization is
people-oriented or work-oriented; happiness index at work; foreign-owned organizations;
employees’ sense of belonging to an organization; personality of senior management; public
perception of employees’ outlook; opportunities to make friends at work. All these factors are
more geared towards practicality as employees, concerning more about employees’ own
benefits likely to get at work. Aspects of organizations’ involvement in CSR activities received
low level of attention and discussion among participants. Participants would first like to see
whether they could get a job at those desirable organizations based on their background and
the job requirements, next they care about whether their employers can help them achieve their
personal goals and needs, something participants considered those organizations should do.
Discussions among participants were very active after having warmed up after the preceding
discussions.
The following are some quotes from participants relating to the above findings.
“I think a basic and reasonable salary is most important”
“Large organizations are better than medium- to small-ones.”
“I have to see whether working there is happy or not, also the personality of your
immediate boss.”
“I would say the essential criterion is my interest in the job or organization”
“If I work for a certain organization like xxx company, I will be looked down upon by my
friends.”
106
“When I choose an organization to work for, I would consider income, personal interest,
personal development and career development, whether the organization will help me
achieve my personal goals”
4.5.1.5.2
Results Summary
The ways participants differentiated between desirable and undesirable organizations to
work for were mainly based on their own interest and benefits and whether their status can fit
the job requirements. The presence of CSR was considered as a ‘good-to-have’ but not a ‘must’.
If the job/organization can offer job security, good pay package, and opportunities for career
development, good organizational image, participants will go for it. Participants believed these
should be something a responsible-employer should provide.
4.5.1.6
Part I - Question 5(b) (Question 2 vs. Question 4)
Question 2
“Given the actual situations you are in, what are then the top five (5) (i.e. desirable)
organizations you would like to work for, and why?”
Question 4
“Given the actual situation you are in, what are then the worst five (5) (i.e. undesirable)
organizations you would NOT like for work for, and why?”
4.5.1.6.1
Data and Analysis
The purposes of this comparison are to triangulate the findings here with those in
Questions 2 and 4 (i.e. differentiating between desirable and undesirable organizations as future
employers, under actual situations), and tried to identify if there are any new factors involved by
phrasing the question in a different manner.
107
Again, a high level of commonality exists in the nature of reasons for Questions 2 and 4.
Because the assumption is ‘under actual situations’, the reasons put forward are focused more
on practical and realistic aspects, like remuneration package, job security, personal interest,
career development opportunities etc. However, there were some new factors identified,
including: harmony at work, value system of the future employer, personal financial situation at
time of employment decision, treating the job as a way to get experience, originating country of
the future employer.
The following are some quotes from participants relating to the above findings.
“On a short-term basis, I would consider working for those undesirable organizations
because of survival; however in the long-run, I would go for those desirable
organizations”
“My friends will definitely ask me why I joined those infamous organizations with such
bad corporate image and reputation”
“I value those organizations with good CSR, the products they sell are environmentally
friendly. If I work for them, I will feel honoured.”
“I think the main issue is to consider whether my educational level fits the job
requirements, whether my values fit in with those of my future employer”
4.5.1.6.2
Results Summary
Similar pattern of findings as in Question 5(a) was found. Under the assumption of
‘actual situation’, participants turned more instrumental in their views. Views previously shared
in Questions 2 and 4 still apply, however, participants had put more emphasis on factors like
harmony at work, value system of the future employer, personal financial situation at time of
employment decision, treating the job as a way to get experience, originating country of the
future employer. Compatibility between the job requirements and applicants’ capabilities, and
108
financial consideration factors seem to be given more attention to. The remuneration package
occupies quite high a position in participants’ agenda, which seems to reflect the views of
employees in general in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, their desirability-perception also hinges on the
degree of match between what the prospective employers want and the perceived capabilities
the participants’ would be able to contribute to the jobs or the organizations. In other words,
participants might still like to work for an organization he/she considers not that desirable,
because of this matching issue. Evidence shows good organizational image and responsibleemployer perception still meant a lot to them.
Having reviewed and identified an array of factors influencing EA, the following section
presents an assessment of participants’ CSRO in a quantitative and qualitative manner.
4.5.2 Part II - CSRO-Perception Ratings of the 7 Companies
Each participant was invited to state his/her perception towards the CSR of the 7
organizations listed (in Appendix B) by ranking them from Best to Worst together with
explanations for their rankings. The ‘Attributes/Actions’ relating to each of the organizations
were extracted from their annual reports or websites in the last quarter of 2011. Out of the
seven organizations, four were on the list ‘Most Admired Companies’ in respect of their social
responsibility, ranked by FORTUNE in 2011. The remaining three organizations represent those
that are familiar to the participants from the media. The organizations are from different
countries and in different industries. The main objective is to gauge how the participants
perceive and differentiate the CSR (that means their CSRO) among these 7 organizations.
109
4.5.2.1
Data and Analysis
To analyse the ranking results, the researcher assigned 7 scores to the Best company
and 1 score to the Worst company for each individual participant, thus the total number of
scores assigned by each participant is 28. Then averages were worked out. Analysis results by
Cat., by gender, and by Company are summarized in Table 14, and Figures 17 and 18 below.
The higher the scores a Company gets, the better-perceived is their CSR. Figure 17
reveals Company 2 was awarded the highest score, next come Company 4 and Company 7.
These 3 Companies occupy the ‘Best side’ of the continuum, while Companies 1 and 5 take up
the opposite side on the continuum. These findings are in alignment with CSRO-Perception
Average Ratings across the 6 Cats. in Figure 18. Furthermore, it can be shown the differences
in CSRO between male and female participants are slight.
Table 14
Cat. 1 participants
Total
(20)
No. of male
3
participants
No. of
17
female
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-perception ratings* of the 7 companies
Company 1
Company 2
Company 3
Company 4
Company 5
Company 6
Company 7
1.3
4.7
2.7
5.3
4.0
3.7
6.3
1.3
5.9
2.6
5.4
3.2
3.6
5.8
1.3
5.8
2.7
5.4
3.4
3.6
5.9
Cat. 2 participants
Total
(16)
No. of male
7
participants
No. of
9
female
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-perception ratings* of the 7 companies
Company 1
Company 2
Company 3
Company 4
Company 5
Company 6
Company 7
1.1
5.9
3.3
4.9
3.4
4.1
5.3
1.7
5.8
2.7
6.4
1.9
4.4
5.1
1.4
5.8
2.9
5.8
2.6
4.3
5.2
110
Cat. 3 participants
Total
(15)
No. of male
5
participants
No. of
10
female
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-perception ratings* of the 7 companies
Company 1
Company 2
Company 3
Company 4
Company 5
Company 6
Company 7
1.6
6.4
2.6
5
1.8
4.4
6
1.3
6.6
3.5
5
2.5
3.8
5.2
1.4
6.5
3.2
5
2.3
4
5.5
Cat. 4 participants
Total
(12)
No. of male
3
participants
No. of
9
female
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-perception ratings* of the 7 companies
Company 1
Company 2
Company 3
Company 4
Company 5
Company 6
Company 7
2.3
6.3
3.0
6.0
1.3
4.0
5.0
2.2
5.6
3.4
4.8
3.0
3.4
5.6
2.3
5.8
3.3
5.1
2.6
3.6
5.4
Cat. 5 participants
Total
(19)
No. of male
15
participants
No. of
4
female
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-perception ratings* of the 7 companies
Company 1
Company 2
Company 4
Company 5
Company 6
Company 7
6.4
Company
3
3.0
2.2
5.3
2.1
4.0
5.1
2.0
5.5
3.3
5.0
2.0
4.5
5.5
2.2
6.2
3.1
5.2
2.1
4.1
5.2
Cat. 6 participants
Total
(15)
No. of male
participants
No. of
female
participants
(Average) Relative CSRO-perception ratings* of the 7 companies
Company 1
Company 2
Company 4
Company 5
5.8
Company
3
3.3
10
2.6
5
Company 7
1.5
Company
6
4.4
4.8
1.4
6.8
3.0
5.8
3.0
3.0
5.0
2.2
6.1
3.2
5.1
2.0
3.9
5.4
* Each participant ranked the 7 companies from Best to Worst. 7 scores were assigned to the Best company and 1
score for the Worst company. For each participant, the total number of scores given was 28.
111
5.6
Figure 17
Figure 18
112
4.5.2.2
4.5.2.2.1
Part II - Reasons behind the CSRO-Perception Ratings
Data and Analysis
Each participant was invited to provide reasons in English for the ranking on the Focusgroup questionnaire form. For most participants, not only did they provide the reasons
pertaining to their ranking of and the 7 Companies themselves, they also shared their personal
thoughts about their CSRO on an individual basis rather on a focus-group basis. All these
views/comments were analysed in an integrated manner below, with a view to identify what
attributes/factors would the participants use to differentiate between a good CSR and a bad
CSR organization. The findings were analyzed and summarized below.
4.5.2.2.2
Good/Bad Differentiating CSR Organizational Attributes
Across all the 6 Cats. of participants, all the 4 types of responsibilities as shown in
Carroll’s definitional CSR model/construct (1979, 1991a) were considered to be good CSR
organizational attributes. They are: economic, legal, ethical, and voluntary/discretionary
responsibilities. The participants stated or expressed these 4 types in different wordings or
terminology. Participants did not specifically rank them in terms of importance or sequence of
the responsibilities’ assumption. However, evidence seems to show participants considered
assumption of Economic Responsibilities and Legal Responsibilities are normally and basically
expected of in any organization; while taking up Ethical Responsibilities and Discretionary
Responsibilities were also considered desirable to have.
Alongside these 4 responsibilities and other factors cited, most of the respondents in
their sense-making cited their expectations of organizations to discharge an additional set of
responsibilities, the researcher classifies this newly identified set as ‘Responsible-Employer
Responsibilities’ (‘RER’). This set of RER interacts with each of the 4 responsibilities to various
113
extents. The great majority of participants felt that RER is very important and normally expected
of in every organization. It was a common belief and perception among the participants as
prospective employees that a good CSR organization should normally take up the four types of
responsibilities as in Carroll’s model and RER. Based on the participants’ sense-making of what
a good CSR organization should be and their direct quotes in the focus-group interviews, the
resulting CSR differentiating organizational attributes are illustrated below by either looking at
their positive or negative aspects.
Participants generally agreed on the importance of an organization’s maximization of
earnings per share, maintenance of a strong competitive position based on a high level of
operating efficiency, however, it should also have RER, for example, committing to human rights,
providing job security and respecting employees, caring about employees’ welfare, operating
responsibly in society; engaging in fair trading etc. Making profits is good, but not at the
expense of employees and society at large. Therefore good CSR organizations should also
assume these ‘important and normally present’ RER.
In participants’ mind, corporate uptake of legal responsibilities is fundamental, at least
meeting the minimal legal requirements. But that is not enough. Participants cited corporate
practices that, though legally compliant, they considered of non-RER, that means, not good in
CSR, like: just paying minimum wages as required by law, operating through legal loopholes,
producing inferior quality of goods though meeting legal standards, polluting environment in
areas not yet subject to any legal governance, carrying out insincere activities etc. If
organizations can turn these undesirable practices in participants’ perception into desirable
ones, participants will judge the organizations to be good in CSR.
On the ethical responsibility aspect, in addition to performing in a manner consistent with
expectations of societal mores and ethical norms, recognizing corporate integrity, and
114
preventing ethical norms from being compromised to achieve corporate goals, organizations
should not have non-RER behaviours like: operating with double standards, pressuring
employees to work overtime, building up an organization image that is false or misleading,
putting employees under constant undue pressure, subjecting employees to unfair treatment,
treating employees like robots/machines, ignoring employees’ hierarchy of needs. Absence or
improvement of these non-RER practices will make the organization perceived to be good in
CSR.
Concerning philanthropic responsibilities, participants generally recognized it is a ‘plus’
or ‘bonus’ for organizations to have. In their mind set, ‘care about society and environment’,
‘involvement in social investment projects’, ‘sponsorship of NGOs/Non-Profit organizations’
were their beliefs. These beliefs could only sustain if and only if organizations in one way or
another discharge RER behaviours.
There was a notable phenomenon prevailing among most participants. They were
particularly disapproving of the ways some groups or tycoons monopolize or control the markets,
affecting people’s daily lives in different aspects, for example, limited choices of services and
goods, purposely limiting supply of housing units, high rentals for households and business
operators etc. . Though these groups of companies or tycoons were operating legally, society or
even government can do nothing about their undesirable corporate practices. Participants
perceived these parties are bad in CSR and very negative in organizational image, no matter
how good they were in the four types of responsibilities.
In all the above situations, participants generally felt a good CSR organization should
take up the 4 responsibilities as in Carroll’s framework, and RER, but their relative magnitude
and sequence are unclear. Organizations would then have a strong organizational image, which
in turn can reflect well on their as employees. Prospective employees would also find these
115
prospective employers attractive to work for. It appears RER is important in the sense-making of
many participants; RER is important and should normally present in an organization, as a
common factor across most of the participants. This sense-making of RER corroborates with the
participants’ feelings, attitudes, beliefs and experience during their focus-group discussions.
Comparing participants based on previous ethics training, gender and majors, no
material perception differences were found in their differentiating a good CSR organization from
a bad one. Thus evidence seems to suggest neither previous ethics study nor gender nor major
was a moderating factor in the present research.
4.5.2.2.3
Results Summary
The analyses results portray a modified perspective of CSR framework by Carroll (1979,
1991a). The modified framework is shown in Figure 19 below, with RER being an important and
normally present component, alongside the 4 current responsibilities. This modified CSR
framework may be just applicable to Hong Kong’s graduate labour market at the time of the
research. Great abhorrence by the majority of participants at the ways and manners an
organization treats its employees creates an expectation of RER being an additional and
important component in the total CSR 4-domain framework suggested by Carroll. In other words,
RER can be something important graduates would normally expect an organization to take up;
however its width and breadth, and extent and nature of its impact on /interaction with the 4
CSR components, are to be further researched. In other words, participant’s judgment was that
the idea of RER is a ‘short hand’ for a good CSR organization.
The findings basically are in alignment with Carroll’s 4-domain framework (1979, 1991a)
but not with Schwartz and Carroll (2003) 3-Domain Model of CSR. Also the present findings are
different from Angelidis and Ibrahim (2002) research findings that, compared to corporate
executives, majority of business majors students typically show lower ethical and moral
116
standards (Angelidis and Ibrahim, 2002). Tallying with the findings, Arlow (1991) finds
undergraduate major seems to have little influence on students’ ethical values.
Figure 19
Modified Carroll’s framework for a corporation’s
Total Social Responsibilities (1979, 1991a)
Discretionary responsibilities
Responsible
Employer
responsibilities
(‘RER’)
(important and normallyexpected of)
Ethical responsibilities
Legal responsibilities
Economic responsibilities
To further gauge the participants’ CSRO-Importance, the researcher adopted the
research instrument used by Aupperle (1982, 1984) which was based on Carroll’s 4-domain
framework (1979, 1991a). The next section presents findings using this quantitative approach.
117
4.5.3 Part III - Participants’ CSRO-Importance Weightings of the 10 sets of CSR
Statements
4.5.3.1
Data and Analysis
Averages were worked out and analysed by each type of Responsibilities and by gender
in Table 15 below. Analysis results by Cat. and types of Responsibilities are summarized in
Figures 20 and 21 below.
The higher the score a type of Responsibility gets, the higher importance a respondent
attached to it. Figures 20 and 21 reveal Legal and Ethical Responsibilities were awarded the
highest score compared to Economic and Discretionary Responsibilities.
In terms of importance-attachment to Ethical and Legal Responsibilities, those who had
previous ethics training (i.e. Cats. 1, 3 and 5) were found not significantly different from those
not having ethics training (i.e. Cats. 2, 4 and 6). However, variations in importance-attachment
are more apparent in Discretionary Responsibilities among the 6 Cats. It could be seen that
there are slight differences in importance-attachment in Discretionary and Economic
Responsibilities among Cats.1, 4 and 6.
Table 15
Participants’ CSRO-Importance Weightings of the 10 sets of CSR Statements
Cat. 1 participants
Total
(20)
No. of male
3
participants
No. of female
17
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-importance weightings#
of the 10 sets of statements
Discretionary
Ethical
Legal
Economic
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
19.3
31.0
28.3
21.3
27.1
31.0
25.0
16.9
25.9
31.0
25.5
17.6
118
Cat. 2 participants
Total
(16)
No. of male
7
participants
No. of female
9
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-importance weightings#
of the 10 sets of statements
Discretionary
Ethical
Legal
Economic
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
21.9
30.9
21.6
25.9
24.2
28.9
25.8
21.1
23.2
29.8
23.9
23.2
Cat. 3 participants
Total
(15)
No. of male
5
participants
No. of female
10
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-importance weightings#
of the 10 sets of statements
Discretionary
Ethical
Legal
Economic
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
21.4
29.8
26.8
22
18.7
27.9
31.3
23.1
19.6
28.5
29.8
22.7
Cat. 4 participants
Total
(12)
No. of male
3
participants
No. of female
9
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-importance weightings#
of the 10 sets of statements
Discretionary
Ethical
Legal
Economic
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
22.7
35.7
24.0
17.7
18.9
28.0
28.4
24.7
19.8
29.9
27.3
22.9
Cat. 5 participants
Total
(19)
No. of male
15
participants
No. of female
4
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-importance weightings#
of the 10 sets of statements
Discretionary
Ethical
Legal
Economic
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
23.3
26.8
26.7
23.1
22.0
23.5
29.0
25.5
23.1
26.1
27.2
23.6
119
Cat. 6 participants
Total
(15)
No. of male
10
participants
No. of female
5
participants
Overall average
(Average) Relative CSRO-importance weightings#
of the 10 sets of statements
Discretionary
Ethical
Legal
Economic
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
responsibility
30.7
27.8
20.4
21.1
31.2
31.2
26.0
11.6
30.9
28.9
22.3
17.9
#
each participant ranked the 4 statements in each of the 10 sets of statements about their CSRO awareness of
/importance towards those statements. 4 scores were given to the most important, and 1 score for the least important.
Totally there were 10 sets of statements. For each participant, the total scores given for the 10 sets were 100.
Figure 20
120
Figure 21
4.5.3.2
Results Summary
Overall, the participants indicated their relatively higher importance attached to Ethical
and Legal Responsibilities as compared to the Economic and Discretionary Responsibilities.
With the consistency across the 6 Cats. on importance-weighting among the 4 types of
Responsibilities, evidence seems to suggest that previous ethics training and gender were not a
moderating factor in this aspect of CSRO-importance attachment/weighting.
The findings are somewhat different from similar research by Ray (2006) using primarily
a quantitative paradigm. Among his research findings are: females were more likely to rate
organizations with high discretionary behaviors as more attractive than males; gender often
moderated the relationship between CSRO and employer attractiveness; for individuals with a
higher concern for economic performance orientation, economic behavior was a key indicator of
attractiveness regardless of an organization’s performance on ethical and discretionary
121
behaviors. However, the 3-Domain Model of CSR of Schwartz and Carroll (2003) does not
seem to apply in the present research as reflected in the findings.
4.5.4 Summary of Focus-Group Interviews
From the focus-group interviews above, participants’ ‘espoused values’ in CSRO and EA
were identified and analysed.
An array of employer-attractiveness influencing factors and reasons behind were
identified, by comparing desirable and undesirable organizations as prospective employers,
under conditions of no restriction and under actual conditions.
It was found that whether a prospective employer has the 4 types of responsibilities as in
Carroll’s framework does not make up an important determinant on the organization’s
attractiveness, rather it is a ‘nice-to-have’ component than a ‘must’, a phenomenon that prevails
over all the respondents, irrespective of previous ethics studies. What a prospective employer
can offer to the respondents, for example, financial remuneration, peers’ perception, personal
needs satisfaction and development, job nature, work location, good organizational image, and
respect to employees, etc., matters much more. Among these, majority of participants
considered RER and good organizational image quite high an EA influencing factor. In other
words, respondents just tried to focus more on their self-interest than considering how they can
fit in with the jobs. On the other side of the positive EA mirrors something that the respondents
commonly regarded as unacceptable corporate behaviour, that is, those tycoons or
organizations having enormous market power to manipulate people or society for their own
benefits, even though in a legal manner.
In differentiating between good and bad CSR organizations, respondents’ CSR
orientations were consistent, which mostly is in alignment with Carroll’s model, but however with
122
an additional set of RER. It seems that previous ethics training and gender were not an
influencing factor on their CSRO. For Carroll’s 4 types of responsibilities, respondents attached
relatively higher importance to Ethical and Legal Responsibilities as compared to the Economic
and Discretionary Responsibilities.
Evidence seems to show another set of responsibilities, called ‘RER’, can be a factor
normally expected of and of importance to the participants, in their CSRO and EA, and Carroll’s
model is thus modified. In other words, RER is something graduates would normally expect an
organization to take up; however its width and breadth, and extent and nature of its impact on
/interaction with the 4 CSR components, are to be further researched. This modified framework
of Carroll may only be applicable in Hong Kong’s graduate labour market at the time of research.
From the above, it can be established that there is a positive relationship between
respondents’ CSRO and EA, details of which will be covered in the next Chapter. This is in
alignment with McGinty and Reitsch (1992) findings that about-to-graduate college students
looking for employment appear to be interested in a wide range of non-financial and financial
rewards that make up the employment agreement.
To get a more complete and in-depth understanding of the ‘values in use’ in participants’
employment decisions, a phone-interview was conducted a couple of months later. In the focusgroup interviews, there were 97 participants, all undergraduate students in their senior year of
study, roughly half of them would graduate in Jan 2012 and the other half in the middle of 2012.
In the follow-up phone-interviews conducted about 3 months thereafter, the researcher
successfully reached and obtained responses/views from 79 students, representing 81.4% of
the total 97 participated in the focus-group interviews. The next section presents the data
collection and their analysis of the data from phone-interviews.
123
4.6
Responses from Phone-Interviews: Actual Employment Decisions
4.6.1 Data and Analysis
The findings and analyses are summarized in Table 16 and Figure 22 below.
The 81.4% respondents spread quite evenly across the 6 Cats. From Figure 22, it can
be seen that no particular or uniform pattern can be discerned in the types of organizations
respondents applied to. All the 5 types of organizations got different levels of interest from the 6
Cats. of respondents.
The phenomenon in Figure 22 is much different from the phenomenon in Figure 15
‘Desirable Organizations to work for (under actual situation)’. As shown in Figure 15, there was
comparatively higher interest across the 6 Cats. in working for Public-listed organizations and
Civil-service or Government-funded ones. However, the phenomenon in Figure 22 seems to be
tallying to some extent with the phenomenon in Figure 15 ‘desirable Organizations to work for
(under actual situation)’ in that the Civil-service or Government-funded and Others
organizations actually applied to are the same as those considered as least undesirable in
Figure 16.
As compared with the answers to Question 2 in Part I of the focus-group interview, the
majority of respondents turned even more pragmatic in their actual employment choice. They
put much more emphasis on what kinds of personal benefits the prospective employers/jobs
can provide among those factors already identified in the focus-group interviews. Only a
minority of respondents indicated they had considered whether the prospective employers had
involved in CSR or charity activities. In other words, it seems that what the respondents were
mainly concerned about was their self-interest.
The following are some quotes from participants relating to the above findings:
124
“I applied to xxx company because I think the company offers good promotion
opportunities, and there are chances of work re-location to overseas branches”
“I heard xxx company is willing to provide in-house training to employees. Not only that,
its corporation reputation is good and the job fits my personal interest”
“I had previous working experience in this xxx company. It has positive growth and its
partners are famous and strong, such as xxx and xxx. The job duties are related to my
study. It can fulfill my personal principles as well as the safety needs as per Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs”
“The xxx company is big in size, cares for employees, provides good compensation
packages (5-day work, life insurance, medical insurance) and is willing to give
opportunity to fresh graduates.”
Table 16
Cat. 1 respondents (17)
Type of Organization applied to
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
24%
47%
6%
23%
100%
Cat. 2 respondents (14)
Type of Organization applied to
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
35%
25%
20%
5%
15%
100%
125
Cat. 3 respondents (9)
Type of Organization applied to
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
10%
10%
10%
70%
100%
Cat. 4 respondents (6)
Type of Organization applied to
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
50%
50%
100%
Cat. 5 respondents (15)
Type of Organization applied to
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
4%
46%
23%
23%
4%
100%
Cat. 6 respondents (15)
Type of Organization applied to
Small- to medium-sized
Public-listed
MNC
Civil service or government-funded
Others
Percentage
25%
13%
33%
21%
8%
100%
126
Figure 22
4.6.2 Results Summary
Comparing the phenomena as depicted in Figure 15 ‘Desirable Organizations to work for
(under actual situation)’, Figure 16 ‘undesirable Organizations to work for (under actual
situation)’ and Figure 22 ‘Actual Organizations applied for employment’, it was found
respondents’ espoused values are not in congruent with their ‘values in use’ in EA and CSRO.
Employers that can fulfill its employees’ personal needs and with fair/ethical treatment at work
are ones respondents have actually gone for. RER responsibilities seem not to have been a
major consideration factor in respondents’ actual employment decisions.
127
4.7
Summary of Findings and Analyses
4.7.1 Thematic Framework for Analysis of Views Received
Based on the insights gained from the analyses, three main themes were found and are
summarized in Table 17 below. This diagram is a partial thematic tree showing only the three
main themes and various categories of views. A detailed list of all themes, categories and
subcategories is shown in Appendix D.
Table 17
Thematic Framework for Analysis of Views Received
1. Students’ CSRO
2. EA influencing
factors
3. Actual
employment
decision factors
1.1 Economic responsibilities
2.1 Job applicant's
background
2.2 ResponsibleEmployer
responsibilities
3.1 Financial
incentives
3.2 CSR
behaviours
1.2 Legal responsibilities
1.3 Ethical responsibilities
3.3 Work culture
1.4 Voluntary/Discretionary
responsibilities
1.5 Responsible-Employer
responsibilities
3.4 Structural
attributes
3.5 Management
style
3.6 Organization's
origin/type
3.7 Reputation or
Image
3.8 Work location
3.9 Job nature
3.10 Workforce
development
3.11 Job-Fit
Note:
This diagram is a partial thematic tree showing 3 main themes and various categories of views only. A
detailed list of all themes, categories and subcategories is shown in Appendix D.
128
4.7.2
Theme 1 — Students’ CSRO
This Theme consists of 5 domains or components, 4 of which are in alignment with
Carroll’s 4-domain model/framework (1979, 1991a). The researcher terms the additional type of
responsibility ‘Responsible-Employer Responsibilities’ (‘RER’), as shown in Figure 19.
Respondents generally considered a good CSR organization should have the 4 types of
responsibilities as carried in Carroll’s 4-domain framework alongside a set of RER.
Respondents also attached much importance to RER in their CSRO, which can include aspects
of labour treatment, employee satisfaction and relationship, organizational image and reputation,
management style etc. Analysis of results reveal there were no material differences in
participants’ CSRO between gender, those with and without previous ethics-study.
4.7.3
Theme 2 — EA Influencing Factors
Under this Theme are 2 categories — job applicants’ background and RER. What
participants were looking for which organizations to apply to and work for partly depend on
participants’ own background like demographics, personal interest and organization-person
fitness. The RER that participants expected from a prospective employer mostly gear towards
satisfying or fulfilling participants’ hierarchy of needs, namely, physiological, safety, love and
belonging, esteem and self-actualization. The forms these RER take include: financial
incentives, management style/structure, organization structural attributes, employer’s country of
origin, corporate reputation and image, work location, job nature, and workforce development
strategy. In simple terms, participants’ perspective is unidirectional, they just try to maximize
their own personal well-being with little concern about how they can contribute to their
employers or whether the future employers would find them suitable for the jobs. As long as
participants think they can fit the job requirements and get what they want from their prospective
employers, the latter will be considered as attractive.
129
4.7.4
Theme 3 — Actual Employment Decision Factors
The decision factors found in this research are more pragmatic in nature, similar to and
representing just some of those RER in Theme 2, but with much less magnitude and variety in
comparison.
Based on the above findings and analysis results, a foundation has been laid for the
following and final Summary and Conclusion Chapter.
130
5.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter the researcher will summarise the findings as they provide answers to the
research questions which have guided the thesis. The researcher will then go on to discuss two
alternative interpretations of the findings and explore the theoretical and practical implications.
5.1
Conclusions about the Research Questions
The objective of this research is to investigate the relationships between Corporate
Social Responsibility Orientation (‘CSRO’) and Employer Attractiveness (‘EA’) in Hong Kong’s
graduate labour market, from the perspectives of students in their final year of undergraduate
study, as directed by four main research questions. The four questions focus on students’
CSRO, EA influencing factors to them, employment decision-factors, and relationship between
CSRO and EA. This section draws conclusions about the research questions as follows.
5.1.1 Research Question One and Question Two
“What attributes/factors would undergraduate students (having taken an ethics course)
use to differentiate between a good CSR and a bad CSR organization?”
“What attributes/factors would undergraduate students (not having taken an ethics
course) use to differentiate between a good CSR and a bad CSR organization?”
Evidence shows good CSR organizations as contrasted to bad ones should assume the
4 types of responsibilities in Carroll’s definitional CSR model/construct (1979, 1991a), they are:
economic, legal, ethical, and voluntary/discretionary responsibilities. No particular priority or
magnitude in assuming these responsibilities has been specified. One notable finding was: the
majority of participants considered a significant attribute signifying bad CSR — if an
131
organization or a business tycoon monopolizes or controls markets thus adversely affecting
people’s society’s well-being, though law-compliant, it is bad in corporate social responsibility.
In addition to these 4 responsibilities, most of the participants expected organizations
should concurrently carry RER in order to be considered good in corporate social responsibility.
These RER include the following attributes as quoted by them:

provide job security to employees

enable employees to work happily

respect towards and support of employees

good relationship with employees, with no discrimination

provision of a good working environment for staff

interest in looking after the well-being of employees

care about employees’ feelings

establishing a happy workforce and a sociable internal operating environment

giving freedom to employees at work
Participants across the 6 Cats. to a large extent came to the same conclusion of which
companies (in Part II of the focus-group interview) were considered to be good CSR
organizations, differentiating from the bad ones. No evidence was obtained showing previous
ethics-study has played a significant impact on their differentiation. Thus the above
differentiating attributes/factors apply to all the participants. Findings also show demographic
variables of gender, age, study major and mode of study have not been a moderating factor in
this differentiation.
132
5.1.2 Research Question 3
“Do undergraduate students make sense in a segregated way (based on Carroll’s 1979
and 1991a model) or in a hybrid way (based on Schwartz and Carroll’s 2003 model), or
in some other way when making either negative or positive employment-choice decision
in Hong Kong graduate labour market?”
Neither Carroll’s 4-domain framework (1979, 1991a) nor a hybrid framework (based on
Schwartz and Carroll’s 2003 model) did exactly apply to the participants, in either their negative
or positive employment-choice decisions in Hong Kong graduate labour market. They made
sense by having their own set of EA influencing factors, corroborated by their actual
employment decisions thereafter the focus-group interview process. Working for a good CSR
organization was something the participants would like to go for. In their perception, a good
CSR employer should take up RER, in addition to the other 4 types of responsibilities in
Carroll’s framework, but not in any particular sequence or magnitude. This is in alignment with
the conclusions for Research Question One and Question 2. Participants were mainly
concerned about what their prospective employers could give them, a perspective very
unidirectional in nature. For example, participants generally found Civil-service/Governmentfunded organizations and organizations with large-scaled operations more attractive, and Smallto Medium-sized ones less attractiveness, based on job-security and salary-package
considerations.
5.1.3 Research Question 4
“Are undergraduate students’ CSRO (espoused values) in congruence with what
students are actually doing (values in use) in their employer-choice process in Hong
Kong graduate labour market? What insights into the sense-making of students
regarding CSR values and employer choice can be derived?”
133
It was found that undergraduate students’ CSRO (espoused values) are not much in
congruence with their ‘values in use’ in their employer-choice process in the Hong Kong
graduate labour market, in the context of CSRO and EA; for example, the type of organizations
they wished to join turned out to be quite different from what they subsequently worked for. This
brings out the differences between participants’ public talk’ (espoused values) and ‘private talk’
(values in use). However, it can be established that there is a relationship between students’
CSRO and EA, based on the strong linkage between them in the form of RER.
In the perception of the respondents, when making either negative or positive
employment-choice decisions, the factors they would consider mainly consist of what the future
employers/jobs can provide in terms of, for example, job security, salary package, long-term
career development opportunities; an organization’s economic sustainability, law compliance,
and RER. Only a small number of students considered corporate involvement in ethical and/or
discretionary activities/practices are among their employment-decision considerations. This kind
of perception was more apparent and intense in their actual employment-decisions. Types of
organizations actually applied for and reasons turned out to be quite different from those in
focus-group interviews, indicating differences between ‘public talks’ and ‘private talks,
‘espoused values’ and ‘values in use’, for example, the negative sentiments expressed at some
market monopolists or business tycoons as reflected in the focus-group interviews were not
considered in their actual employment-decisions.
This may be explained by the social-cultural environment under which respondents live,
Hong Kong where the East meets West, a business hub in the Far East, acting as a gateway to
Mainland China. ‘Survival of the fittest’ seems to be a prevalent phenomenon in Hong Kong, not
just in employment and but in other aspects.
134
It was revealed there was consistency of CSRO-Perception among the 6 Cats. of
respondents. Similar consistency was found in their CSRO-Importance Weightings assigned.
Students’ demographics background (age, gender, study major and study mode, previous
ethics-study) did not much impact the ways they differentiate between a good CSR and a bad
CSR organization. Carroll’s 4-domain total CSR model (1979, 1991a) did not fully apply to this
group of students under research, but needs to be modified as per Figure 19. Most of the
students perceived that, if an organization is socially responsible, it should also assume some
responsibilities expected of a responsible-employer. The researcher terms these as
‘Responsible Employer Responsibilities (RER)’, those normally expected of and of importance,
alongside the 4 types of responsibilities in Carroll’s framework, when applied to the graduate
labour market in Hong Kong.
5.1.4 Initial Conclusion
The findings and conclusions presented in the analyses and discussions reveal that
students generally have an espoused theory of working for a good CSR organization, which
formed a main consideration factor in their employment-decision. However, students had a
different ‘CSR’ connotation, which differs from Carroll’s 4-domain model (1979, 1991a) and 3domain model (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003). They considered RER a set of important
responsibilities normally expected of, alongside the four types of responsibilities in Carroll’s
framework. No strong evidence could be found to establish the said relationship would be
affected by students’ demographics which include previous ethics-study, study major, gender,
working experience and age.
The conclusions might be unique in Hong Kong as the geographical context in this
research. Hong Kong is a multi-ethnic and culture city, a major financial centre in the Far East.
Thus it is not surprising to find that students at large were money-oriented, mainly focusing on
135
self-interest in comparison to other factors like civics as a citizen and ethical and/or
discretionary responsibilities as an employer. ‘Survival of the fittest’ aptly describes the socialcultural environment under which the students were living.
5.2
Interpretations and Contribution to Knowledge
This chapter draws interpretations from the findings and analyses, provide implications
for practice and conclusions to the research questions, based on the insights derived through
inductive analysis, content analysis and a convergence process. By way of interactions between
the researcher and the participants/respondents and the data collected from them, major
themes and meanings emerged were synthesized to make sense for the conclusions, as
covered under 4.7 in Chapter 4.
Lofland (1971) argues that the strong suit of the qualitative researcher is the ability “to
provide an orderly description of rich, descriptive detail”. Meanwhile, Patton (2002) considers
“interpretation means attaching significance to what was found, making sense of findings,
offering explanations, drawing conclusions, extrapolating lessons, making inferences,
considering meanings, and otherwise imposing order on an unruly but surely patterned world”.
It would appear that even though students may have a CSR orientation when they are
applying for jobs, and more particularly, when they are employed, their CSR orientation reduces.
In one sense their espoused theory concerning ethics and employment decisions seems not to
turn out to be their theory-in-use. This can be seen as a disappointing finding, and it may be
even more disappointing when combined with the finding that ethics as a component of their
education does not appear to make a significant difference. Therefore, we are faced with the
questions: why should this be? And, what, if anything, may be done to address the issue?
The researcher will offer two alternative interpretations of the findings and then discuss
the potential contributions to theory and practice that arise from the analysis and interpretations.
136
5.2.1 Interpretation One
In interpretation one, it appears there is a straight-line contradiction between the
respondents’ espoused values in CSRO and EA when they were students and the values in use
when they later became job applicants.
Their CSRO espoused values are congruent with and encompass Carroll’s four types of
responsibilities but alongside the ‘RER’; while the EA espoused values carry RER as a
significant component. The kinds of RER students expected of are certain responsibilities they
consider organizations should have towards their employees In other words, students focus
more on how their employers can satisfy their self-interest and individual gain.
For their values in use, students turned out to be pragmatic in seeking a job and to some
degree instrumental in their thinking. This is illustrated by the incongruence between the
resulting types of organizations they have applied for and those under their espoused values,
for example, students applied to those organizations they had previously considered
undesirable because of low CSR and RER track records. Students focused more on what they
could actually get from the job in the real world by matching what they possess with what are
expected from the job requirements and employers. In their employment-decisions, CSR and
RER have played an insignificant role.
Lau and Pang (1995) examined the perceptions and expectations of Chinese graduates
in Hong Kong towards their careers and initial job needs immediately prior to their graduation.
The results show both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are important in career and job aspects.
Intrinsic rewards include long-term profession, continuous development, area of self-interest,
goal in life, match with career plan, good training, relevance to course of study, attractive terms
of employment etc. While extrinsic rewards comprise good promotion, attractive salary and
terms of employment.
137
On the other hand, Tang and Chiu (2003) studied a model involving income, the love of
money, pay satisfaction, organizational commitment, job changes, and unethical behavior
among 211 full-time employees in Hong Kong. It was found that the love of money was related
to unethical behavior, but income (money) was not. Also pay satisfaction was positively related
to organizational commitment.
Tong (2007) studied the discrepancy between pre-entry job expectation and post-entry
actual perception of new employees in Hong Kong’s retail banking industry. Findings show new
employees do not always hold inflated job expectations, rather they hold both higher and lower
expectations compared to the reality in different jobs. The areas where significant discrepancies
appear are those that affect pay, task importance, work pressure, encouragement of free
speech and fairness to employees.
From the perspective of cultural differences, Wang and Yao (2011) suggest the Chinese
tradition is a core antecedent of job applicants’ perceived fairness and an important moderator
between applicants’ perceived fairness and work outcomes.
Given these studies, one possible explanation is that students were conforming to their
context and culture. There is some evidence of differences in judgments and expectations preand post- employment and also support for the finding that there is a tendency towards an
instrumental engagement with work in which extrinsic motivation and a desire for financial and
personal rewards is to the fore. It may be that when questioned as students, the respondents
genuinely believed that they had a CSR orientation, but when faced with the reality of
employment decisions, they conformed to cultural expectations. Once in the job market,
respondents might have found their RER wish-list not realistic. To survive and compete with
graduates, the respondents had to be practical and therefore could only turn to those
organizations from which respondents’ hierarchy of personal needs could be met as much as
possible, creating a win-win situation for the employers and employees. Alternatively, it may be
138
that students had a low CSR orientation throughout the study but gave what they thought to be
the desired answers in the university setting. Thus, interpretation one is that there is a
contradiction between the espoused theory and the theory-in-use and that this may arise either
from conforming to cultural expectations in different contexts (pre- and post-employment
decision making), or that there was a degree of disguising of true thoughts during the first phase
of the research.
5.2.2 Interpretation Two
Interpretation two offers an alternative in which both espoused theory and theory-in-use
can be absorbed within a single, elastic conception. RER is fundamentally ambiguous a concept
in that it is possible to use the term and ideas in different times and different places or may be in
different professions without feeling they are contradicting themselves. The term may not be
contradictory, simply because we are working with expansive concepts, which may look like a
contradiction to observers (outsiders) but not respondents (insiders).
Because the term RER is elastic or stretchable, it means that what outsiders see as a
contradiction is not experienced by the insiders as a contradiction. The insiders experienced it
as being consistent.
The whole interpretation to some degree rests upon the view of RER as either a) ethical
treatment of employees as part of an organization’s social responsibilities or b) people are just
trying to have their hierarchy of personal needs satisfied at work (Maslow, 1943).
In this research, the respondents being the insiders may have considered RER as a
component of CSR which could change in meaning and significance over time and in different
circumstances without them being fully aware of the change. In other words, respondents
expected organizations not only to take up economic responsibilities, legal responsibilities,
ethical responsibilities and voluntary responsibilities, but also RER, in order to make a complete
139
set of CSR. RER could be interpreted when a student as a fundamentally social concept –
hence CSR being about the generic treatment of employees in general. However, when
seriously thinking about becoming an employee, the conceptualization could change from the
general to the particular. That is, instead of thinking about RER applying to a ‘generalised other’
it now applies directly to the self. This change in perspective could relate to a refocusing in the
ambiguous meaning of RER. Hence, the new focus is on what the company can do for me,
rather than how it ought to behave ethically towards employees. This results in what appears to
be a more instrumental orientation to the employing organisation, or a shift in emphasis from
version (a) to version (b), a more Maslovian perspective.
5.3
Implications for Practice
The two interpretations could have implications to the graduate labour market in Hong
Kong. If not taken care of appropriately, stakeholders involved would inevitability be affected in
one way or another. In this research, the immediate stakeholders are graduates or prospective
graduates, employers and universities in Hong Kong.
5.3.1 Interpretation One
From employers’ point of view with awareness of the contradiction, before recruitment
they need to give a perception to graduates or prospective graduates that their organizations
have a positive CSR image that closely match graduates’ CSRO, based on the modified Carroll
framework in Figure 18. Several means/platforms can be used to this effect, for example,

websites showing their corporate commitment to CSR, CSR activities done and
under planning

annual report having a section ‘CSR Highlights’ to review key CSR activities
related directly to business activities and certain other topics of interest to
stakeholders.
140

opening up stakeholder dialogue

addressing key questions in CSR recruitment from both employers’ and the
potential employees’ perspectives

providing insights into the fast-changing legal world of CSR management

corporate volunteering as a tool of strategic company development

organizing events under the auspices of a CSR department
Concurrently, organizations need to present themselves having the attributes of a
responsible employer in areas of, for example, treating employees with respect, harmonious
employer-employee relationship, sustainable organizational growth and development, attractive
salary and benefits, good learning opportunities and promising promotion prospects.
During actual recruitment, while presenting a positive image of CSR involvement,
organizations should lay more emphasis on those factors/attributes which enable a close fit
between the job/organization and the applicants to get a win-win situation under the actual
situation. These factors/attributes could include: financial incentives, study major expected,
personal traits and personality, organizational structural attributes, management style, job
nature and work location. The danger inherent in this approach is that the company may appear
to be harbouring contradictions between the presentation of self and the more instrumentallyoriented practices at the point of recruitment.
Educationalists may want to seek to reduce the differences between espoused theory
and theory-in-use. From universities’ point of view, they might want to challenge students for the
contradiction, help students understand the nature of contraction and the likely implications,
differences between espoused and values in use. In this process, universities could make these
issues part of students’ study. A new course ‘CSR’ can be made compulsory in the curriculum
141
or incorporate this interpretation contradiction-issue in the current ethics course’s syllabus. Case
studies or open debates can be used to improve ethics education in this direction.
However, it is clear that conventional forms of education alone are unlikely to be
sufficient. Some practical ways of approaching this can be by: applying and adapting this
present research on participants in other local or overseas universities operating in Hong Kong,
with other study majors, or even for full-time and part-time graduate students, or mixing students
of different nationalities in the sample. The timing of carrying out these exercises might have an
impact, during periods of different employment-demand situations or stages in an economic
cycle. A competition-award can be set up inviting students to write-up some examples from the
real world of where the "Espoused Theory" and the "Theories in Use" do not match; and include
specific ideas for some changes that would be necessary for Theories in Use to be aligned with
the Espoused Theory. As a graduation project, individual or group, one of the topics can be set
as “How would you assess the relative importance of culture, environment, and personal values
in the relationship between your CSRO and EA?” Through these different means, lecturers can
thus gather more insights and data on which to design the ways they are going to teach
students on "Espoused Theory" and the "Theories in Use" in different contexts and cultures.
Meanwhile, universities can encourage their lecturers to attend research seminars or
conferences, helping them to keep abreast with the theoretical developments in these areas.
From the students’ point of view, through their study, they have to be aware there could
be differences between their espoused values and values in use in CSRO and EA in Hong
Kong’s graduate labour market. In translation, they get to understand reality can be quite
different from their own way of perception or thinking. It is prudent and apt for them to use a
different mindset and be well-prepared in their employment decision under real situations. If
possible, no matter which study major a student will be of, they should consider studying ethical
142
businesses earlier on in their education. They should think about the long-term future and the
possibility that in future markets may be more open to ethical businesses, as may be starting to
be the case in parts of the banking and energy sectors. In this direction, students can seek
careers advice from, for example, their university job placement counselors, friends and families,
or mentors. This is vital for their future well-being, better be preparing for a career that will last
into the next 20 or 30 years, which may mean acting differently to the way people did in the past.
5.3.2 Interpretation Two
From employers’ point of view, it makes more sense for them to enact the RER after
recruitment rather than before. Anything portrayed by an organization as responsible before or
during recruitment, if not materialized during employment, will be considered empty talk or some
misleading acts. Through open communications between senior management and employees, a
mutual understanding should be made that the organization and its employees are to grow
together. In this process, concerted and positive efforts are expected by both parties, in good or
bad times. Furthermore, ideas of corporate strategic direction and development, adherence to
the modified Carroll CSR framework, CSR agenda, staff development policy and financial
incentives etc. can be shared and ideas/comments from employees invited. The corporate
strategy should gear towards achieving a sustainable organizational growth and development
for the mutual benefits of both parties. Based on this platform and means, the two views a) and
b) in section 5.2.2 can be accommodated. With RER being an elastic concept, it is suggested
that students should continue to be ‘educated’ after employment – that they could be
encouraged to readopt more CSR orientation after a while and that this could be used as a way
of fostering strong links between the student/employee and the company. This may be better
than making it clear to the employees that they have made contradictions in their thinking, rather
the company could appeal to the best part of the self-image of the employee to encourage and
143
reward ethical and community oriented behaviour. Realization of this approach can be effected
by continuous management-employees communication, motivation, tangible or intangible
rewards. Actually, this can enhance employees’ loyalty and dedication towards their employers.
By way of this, employees’ enhanced CSRO can help address the longer-term strategy of the
organization regarding its core business and commitment to innovation in moving the business
towards sustainability, for example, Deutsche Bank, The Accor Group and Volkswagen.
Consequently employees’ higher hierarchy of needs can also be satisfied.
From universities’ point of view, more research needs to be done on what exactly RER
means or encompasses or entails. RER is fundamentally ambiguous a concept, thus it could be
subject to different interpretations in different times or places or even professions. Before a
concrete interpretation is available, it is useful to use RER in case studies or discussion-forums
or assignments for students. Interesting and new findings may emerge from feedback from
students of different study majors, different nationalities, previous ethics or CSR studies, and
prior working experience, and age groups.
From students’ point of view, they can compare what they perceive RER with what they
actually feel by taking up part-time jobs or internships or sharing life experiences with their
seniors, peers, mentors or families etc. Through these real experiences or consulting, students
can immediately apply and integrate the knowledge or insights got into their studies. This
learning process will be invaluable for the rest of their study and beyond. For example, to be a
responsible student, ‘be well-prepared before every class’ is important and normally expected of
by the lecturer, because it can maximize the learning effect. This can surely be applied
successfully and effectively at work. Learning and reinforcement can be by sharing too.
Students should share their invaluable insights and knowledge in this aspect with their fellow
students who might have similar experience, from which some new insights might be generated
to the benefit of all. This serves a good preparation for students before facing the reality of
144
working in society. The different notions of RER students possess will make them more
adaptable and versatile in the ever-changing and ever-competitive Hong Kong society.
5.3.3 Interpretations One and Two
The most robust practical implications would be those that would work for either
interpretation one or interpretation two.
From the point of view of employers, they could invite academics or work with
universities or human resource consultants to write up a case study about their organization and
let their staff responsible for recruitment do before the recruitment process. The case study
comprises issues, among others, such as corporate CSR agenda, CSRO of management,
current employees and prospective employees, EA, human resource policy, regulatory
framework etc. in the Hong Kong context. Doing this case study will enhance employers’
understanding of the relationship between CSRO and EA. It could also show how employees
are well treated in general (allowing the students to draw conclusions about their personal needfulfillment), and could illustrate how long-term commitment can be formed between company
and employee.
From the point of view of universities, more research needs to be conducted on the
relationship between CSRO and EA, incorporating different variables such as demographics of
students/graduates, organizational culture, management philosophy, organizational structure
etc. Better still, the research is of a longitudinal nature tracking phenomena over a period of time,
say, 10 years.
As some students may go for view a) while some for view b), they could participate in
some critique sessions on RER organized by universities. These critique sessions do not form
part of an ethics course or management course. However, students voluntarily joining them will
get extra marks as an incentive. There will be sessions A and B. In session A, two groups of
145
equal number of students respectively holding view a) and view b) are to separately discuss and
share their perceptions towards RER. In session B, half of the students in each group is to swap
with the other group, that is, each of the two resulting groups will consist of students going for
both views. This time, students are to critique the views of supporters of the alternative view.
This exercise affords students of different views to think through the issues involved and see
what insights they can get.
5.4
Implication for Theory
This study contributes to existing research on the relationship between CSRO and EA in
two main ways: to fill the gaps in the relationship between undergraduate students’ CSRO and
EA in Hong Kong’s graduate labour market, and to be informative both for human resource
management theory and for practice in organizations where there is a debate over whether, and
how, they should pursue a CSR agenda.
This research provides implications to the theories involved in CSR and workforce
development. Carroll’s 4-domain framework and Aupperle’s CSRO research instrument are still
relevant to researchers and practitioner in understanding CSR and CSRO. However, Carroll’s
framework might need some modifications. Global conceptualization of good/positive CSR has
to be further studied, in terms of its components and their individual meanings and coverage,
which can be different in countries, under different cultures and in different periods of time.
Nevertheless, this study evidences undergraduates’ CSRO had a strong linkage with EA.
Carroll’s 4-domain model and 3-domain model (Schwartz and Carroll, 2003) and
Aupperle’s CSRO questionnaire were developed from a corporate perspective whereas the
present study allowed undergraduates to perceive CSR from an individual perspective, as well
as in the context of EA; with Aupplerle’s questionnaire as a triangulation tool. The present
research results clearly show Carroll’s 4-domain or 3-domain model did not exactly apply but
146
need some modifications, possibly from an individualized perspective and under a particular
social-cultural environment and period of time. Therefore these models might need some
modifications or refinement to better understand and resolve the differences in perspectives.
Previous research (Aupperle, 1984; Aupperle et al., 1985) was done on managers to
identify their espoused values and/or actual behaviours they considered to be socially
responsible; whereas this present study was based on students’ individualized perspective; .
and different results turned out. One notable finding is the identification of a fundamentally
ambiguous concept of RER in the context of CSRO and EA. It is suggested more theoretical
consideration and study might be needed in students’ perceptions and explanations for these
different results.
On individual value orientation on workforce development, there has been much
research (Alderfer & McCord, 1970; Judge & Bretz, 1992; McGinty & Reitsch, 1992;
Papamarcos & Sama, 1998). Also studies have been done on employer CSR behaviours and
workforce development behaviors such as recruiting, employee satisfaction, and commitment
(Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Koys, 2001; Peterson, 2004a; Turban & Greening, 1996, 1997). It
seems more can be researched on the espoused CSR values that organizations share with their
other stakeholders.
More important will be the need to research on how definitions and evaluation of CSR
and CSRO change over time and in different circumstances that respondents are in. Previous
studies have not covered respondents as they move from being students to employees and it
may be an important finding that as people’s identities change, so do their CSR orientations.,
Future research may need to focus on the dynamics of meaning associated with CSR values
and employer attractiveness and what specific actions, both organizational and individual, make
up economic, ethical, legal and discretionary behaviours.
147
5.5
Reflection on Methodology
A qualitative approach as the main and a quantitative approach as supplementary were
adopted in the present research by virtue of their special strengths while fully appreciative of
their limitations/weaknesses. With considerable working experience in various sectors, both
private and public, and life experience, the researcher has mastered skills in the focus-group
interviews and phone-interviews, interactions with students, and the subsequent data analyses.
As Patton (2002) suggests, “no abstract process of analysis, no matter how eloquently named
and finely described, can substitute for the skill, knowledge, experience, creativity, diligence,
and work of the qualitative analyst”.
As the focus of the qualitative approach is to identify themes and categories and the
formation of any analytical framework, the researcher has used sense-making and insights in
this process. Richardson (2000) reminds us that qualitative analysis and writing involves us not
just in making sense of the world but also in making sense of our relationship to the world and
therefore in discovering things about ourselves even as we discover things about some
phenomenon of interest.
Much effort has been put in analyzing the qualitative and quantitative data collected,
involving going over notes, audio tapes, transcriptions; organizing the data; looking for patterns,
checking emergent patterns against the data, cross-checking data sources and findings, and
making linkages among the various parts of the data and emergent dimensions of the analyses.
The present research results were generated under and responding to a set of
contextual factors associated with a specific environment, in this case Hong Kong. It is hoped
that future studies of this research topic could employ some other relevant qualitative or mixed
research methods, so as to increase people’s knowledge and understanding of the
phenomenon under study.
148
5.6
Limitation of the Study
This study cannot claim to be an all-encompassing investigation on the research topic
due to time, resources and other constraints. Limitations of any study can shape the results and
influence conclusions. However, this can serve as a strength because of the in-depth
investigation and understanding involved.
There were 3 primary limitations as follows:
1.
The construct of CSR and definitions of EA
2.
The use of 7 real companies’ information from either their annual reports or
websites to gauge participants’ CSRO towards them
3.
The demographic make-up of the sample and focus-group categorization
There were literature about and critiques of the CSR and CSP (corporate social
performance). Aupperle’s CSRO research instrument has been widely used by scholars and
practitioners due to its proven validity, the main reason it was used in the present research.
However, there have been repeated debates over CSR and CSP, their existence and their
definitions. These debates could inevitably be extended to what organizational actions and
philosophies actually represent positive/good CSR. For example, like one of the findings in this
research — could a monopolist or business tycoon controlling market operations, prices and
output be considered as lacking in CSR?
Though the 7 companies (in Part II of the focus-group interviews) were real companies
selected from different countries and in different industries, not all of them were familiar to each
individual participant. The data extracted from the companies’ annual reports and websites
might not give a complete picture about the companies, even though positive and negative data
149
about the companies were included in the interviews for the participants to rate their CSR
perception towards them. Thus participants could only base on what were presented in the
interviews and made their CSRO perceptions.
While the overall sample in this research was selected to fit in with the nature of
information-rich cases under investigation, participants with other demographics that could be
selected have not been selected, for example, study majors like social science, liberal arts,
engineering etc. They could affect the resultant research findings in one way or another. On the
other hand, the participants could have been categorized by some other attributes other than
previous ethics-study, business major, and study mode.
5.7
Future Research
The results of this research provides evidence about the relationship between
undergraduates’ CSRO and EA in Hong Kong’s graduate labour market, built up on the previous
research and literature (Angelidis & Ibrahim, 2004; Aupperle et al., 1985; Ibrahim & Angelidis,
1993; Marz et al., 2003; Mercer, 2003; Smith et al., 2001).
Some possible future research areas/questions include:

comparing undergraduates from different countries

researching minority subpopulations and CSRO

creating measurement instruments of CSRO

identifying any relationship between market behaviours and EA

identifying what aspects of the 4 domains (Carroll, 1979; 1991a) are, or should be
considered more important relative to the other.
150
5.8
Reflection Statement
The researcher is confident that this research has produced some contributions to the
study of the research topic. During the last two decades, Hong Kong has gradually turned
herself into a knowledge-economy. Shrouded under the imminent threat of Hong Kong’
competitiveness being eroded by the neighbouring countries and cities, on one hand
organizations in Hong Kong have to pay more attention on how to recruit and keep the best
human resource, on the other hand, prospective university graduates also need to align their
personal goals and aspirations with those their prospective employers, to create a win-win
situation.
Though this study is an assignment of the researcher’s fulfillment of the DBA
qualification, the researcher really hopes this research can really make a contribution to
knowledge in the areas under study.
151
References
AACSB INTERNATIONAL 2004. Ethics Education in Business Schools. Report of the Ethics
Education Task Force to AACSB International's Board of Directors. St. Louis, MO.
AAKER, D. A. & MYERS, J. G. 1982. Advertising management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, PrenticeHall.
ABBOTT, W. F. & MONSEN, J. 1979. On the measurement of corporate social responsibility.
Academy of Management Journal, 22, 501-515.
ACKERMAN, R. W. 1975. The social challenge to business, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University
Press.
AGLE, B. R. & CALDWELL, C. B. 1999. Understanding Research on Values in Business: A
Level of Analysis Framework. Business & Society, 38(3), 326-387.
AGLE, B. R. & KELLEY, P. 2001. Ensuring validity in the measurement of corporate social
performance : Lessons from corporate United Way and PAC campaigns Journal of
Business Ethics, 31(3), 271-284.
AIMAN-SMITH, L., BAUER, T. N. & CABLE, D. M. 2001. Are you attracted? Do you intend to
pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2),
219.
ALBINGER, H. S. & FREEMAN, S. J. 2000. Corporate social performance and attractiveness as
an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243253.
ALDERFER, C. P. & MCCORD, C. G. 1970. Personal and situational factors in the recruitment
interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 377-385.
ALRECK, P.L., & SETTLE, R.B. (1995). The survey research handbook: Guidelines and
strategies for conducting a survey (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
ANDERSON, J. W. 1989. Corporate social responsibility" Guidelines for top management, New
York, Quorum Books.
ANGELIDIS, J. A. & IBRAHIM, N. A. 2002. Practical implications of educational background on
future corporate executives social responsibility orientation. Teaching Business Ethics,
6(1), 117.
ANGELIDIS, J. A. & IBRAHIM, N. A. 2004. An exploratory study of the impact of degree of
religiousness upon an individual's corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal
of Business Ethics, 51(2), 119-128.
152
ANGELIDIS, J. P., MASSETTI, B. L. & MAGEE-EGAN, P. 2008. Does Corporate Social
Responsibility Orientation vary by position in the organizational hierarchy? Review of
Business, 28 (3), 23-32.
ARLOW, P. 1991. Personal characteristics in college students evaluations of business ethics
and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(1), 63.
ARTHAUD-DAY, M. L. 2005. Transnational Corporate Social Responsibility: a tri-dimensional
approach to international CSR research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15 (1), 1-22.
ASHFORTH, B. E. & MAEL, F. 1989. Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20-39.
ASMUS, P. 2003. 100 Best corporate citizens : Companies that serve a variety of stakeholders
well. Business Ethics CSR Report, 17(1), 6-10.
AUPPERLE, K. E. 1982. An empirical inquiry into the social responsibilities as defined by
corporations: An examination of various models and relationships. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Georgia.
AUPPERLE, K. E. 1984. An empirical measure of corporate social orientation. Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 6, 27-54.
AUPPERLE, K. E. 1991. The use of forced-choice survey procedures in assessing corporate
social orientation. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 269-279.
AUPPERLE, K. E., CARROLL, A. B. & HATFIELD, J. D. 1985. An empirical examination of the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of
management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
BACKHAUS, K. B., STONE, B. A. & HEINER, K. 2002. Exploring the Relationship Between
Corporate Social Performance and Employer Attractiveness. Business & Society, 41(3),
292-318.
BARNARD, C. I. 1938. The functions of the executive, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University
Press.
BARTEL, C. A. 2001. Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work : Effects of community
outreach on members organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46 (2001), 379-413.
BEECH, N., MACINTOSH, R., MCINNES, P. (2008) Identity work: processes and dynamics of
identify formations. International Journal of Public Administration, 31 (9), pp. 957-970.
BELT, J. A. & PAOLILLO, J. G. P. 1982. The influence of corporate image and specificity of
candidate qualifications on response to recruitment advertisements. Journal of
Management, 8, 105-112.
BERNARD, H. R.. 2000. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
153
BHATTACHARYA, C. B. & SEN, S. 2003. Consumer-Company identification : A framework for
understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of marketing, 67(2), 76.
BHATTACHARYA, V. B., SEN, S. & KORSCHUN, D. 2008. Using Corporate Social
Responsibility to Win the War for Talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37-44.
BOUDREAU, J. A. & RYNES, S. L. 1985. Role of recruitment in staffing utility analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 70, 354-366.
BOWEN, H. R. 1953. Social Responsibilities of the businessman, New York, Harper & Row.
BOWMAN, E.H. 1976. Strategy and the Weather. Sloan Management Review, 17, 49-58.
BOWMAN, E.H. 1978. Strategy, Annual Reports, and Alchemy. California Management Review,
20, 64-71.
BRAMMER, S., MILLINGTON, A. & RAYTON, B. 2007. The contribution of corporate social
responsibility to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18, 1701-1719.
BRYANT, A., CHARMAZ, K. The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, (eds.) (2007). London:
SAGE
BROWN, J.S., ALAN, C., and PAUL, D. 1989 “Situated Cognition and the Culture of
Learning.” Educational Researcher 18 (1 January-February), 32-42.
BUCHHOLTZ, A. K., AMASON, A. C. & RUTHERFORD, M. A. 1999. Beyond Resources: The
Mediating Effect of Top Management Discretion and Values on Corporate Philanthropy.
Business & Society, 38(2), 167-187.
BUHMANN, K. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: what role for law? Some aspects of law
and CSR. Corporate Governance, 6, 188-202.
BURTON, B. K., FARH, J. L. & HEGARTY, W. H. 2000. A cross-cultural comparison of
corporate social responsibility orientation : Hong Kong vs. United States students.
Teaching Business Ethics, 4(2), 151.
BURTON, B. K. & HEGARTY, W. H. 1999. Some determinants of student corporate social
responsibility orientation. Business & Society, 38(2), 188.
CABLE, D. M. & JUDGE, T. A. 1994. Pay preference and job search decisions : A personorganization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47(2), 317.
CABLE, D. M. & JUDGE, T. A. 1996. Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry. Organizational Begavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3),
294-31.
154
CAMPBELL, L., GULAS, C. S. & GRUCA, T. S. 1999. Corporate giving behavior and decisionmaker social consciousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4), 375-383.
CARROLL, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
CARROLL, A. B. 1991a. The pyramid of corprate social responsibility : Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
CARROLL, A. B. 1991b. Corporate Social Performance measurement: a commentary on
methods for evaluating an elusive construct. Research in Corporate Social Performance
and Policy, 12, 385-401.
CARROLL, A. B. 1994. Social issues in management research : Experts views, analysis and
commentary. Business & Society, 33(1), 5-29.
CARROLL, A.B. & HORTON, G.T. (1994). Do joint corporate social responsibility programs
work? Business and Society Review (90), 24.
CARROLL, A. B. 1998. The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review,
100(101), 1-7.
CARROLL, A. B. 1999a. Corporate Social Performance and Stakeholder Thinking: The Work
and Influence of Max. B.E. Clarkson. Business & Society, 38(1), 15-17.
CARROLL, A. B. 1999b. Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct.
Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
CARROLL, A. B. 2000a. A Commentary and an Overview of Key Questions on Corporate Social
Performance Measurement. Business & Society, 39(4), 466-478.
CARROLL, A. B. 2000b. Ethical challengers for business in the new millennium : Corporate
social responsibility and models of management morality. Business Ethics Quarterly,
10(1), 33-42.
CARROLL A.B. 2005. Three domain perspective does not supplant the Four Domain Model. In
J.R. Ray, Jr. (Ed.). Washington DC.
CARSON, T.L. 2003. Self-interest and business ethics: Some lessons of the recent corporate
scandals. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 389.
CAVANAGH, G. F. & FRITZSCHE, D. J. 1985. Using vignettes in business ethics research. In:
PRESTON, L. E. (ed.) Research in corporate social performance and policy. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
CHAMBON, A., MULUGETA, A., DREMETSIKAS, T., MCGRATH, S., SHAPIRO, B.Z.. 2000.
Methodology In University-Community Research Partnerships: The Link-By-Link Project
As Case Study. Metropolis Conference Proceedings.
155
CHARTER, H. K. C. S. R. 2011. Hong Kong. Available:
http://www.communitybusiness.org/focus_areas/Charter.htm#charter [Accessed].
CHATMAN, J. A. 1989. Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.
CLARKSON, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate
social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
CLARKSON, M. B. E. 1998. The corporation and its stakeholders: Classic and contemporary
readings, Toronto, The University of Toronto Press.
COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1971. Social Responsibilities of Business
Corporations. New York.
DAVENPORT, K. 2000. Corporate Citizenship: A Stakeholder Approach for Defining Corporate
Social Performance and Identifying Measures for Assessing It. Business & Society,
39(2), 210-219.
DAVIS, K. 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management
Review, 2, 70-76.
DAVIS, K. 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities.
Academy of management Journal, 16(2), 312-322.
DEMOS, T. 2006. Beyond the bottom line. FORTUNE Magazine.
DENZIN, N.K. & LINCOLN, Y.S. 2000. Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In DENZIN, N.K. & LINCOLN, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd Ed.). 1-28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DESAI, A. B. & RITTENBURGH, T. 1997. Global ethics : A integrative framework for MNEs.
Journal of Business Ethics, 16(8), 791.
DESSLER, G. 1999. Essentials of human resource management, Upper Saddle River, NJ.,
Prentice Hall, Inc.
DEY, I. Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. (1999) San Diego:
Academic Press.
DONALDSON, T. 2003. Editor's comment : Taking ethics seriously - A mission now more
possible. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 363.
DOWLING, G. R. 1986. Managing your corporate images. Industrial Marketing Management, 15,
109-115.
DOWLING, G. R. 1988. Measuring corporate images: A review of alternative approaches.
Journal of Business Research, 17, 27-34.
156
DRUCKER, P. F. 1953. The employee society. The American Journal of Sociology, 58(4), 358363.
DRUCKER, P. F. 1984. The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California
Management Review, 26(2), 53-63.
EBERSTADT, N. N. 1973. What history tells us about corporate responsibilities. In: CARROLL,
A. B. (ed.) Managing corporate social responsibility. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
ECONOMICS & SOCIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (ESRC) (2006)
EDMUNDS, H. 1999. The focus group research handbook. Lincolnwood, IL : NTC
Business Books.
EISNER, E.W. 1991. The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of
Educational Practice. New York, Macmillan.
ELIAS, R.Z. 2004. An examination of business students’ perception of corporate social
responsibilities before and after bankruptcies. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(3), 267.
ENTINE, J. 2003. The myth of social investing : A critique of its practice and consequences for
corporate social performance research. Organization & Environment, 16(3), 352.
EPSTEIN, E. M. 1987. The corporate social policy process: Beyond business ethics, corporate
social responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness. California Management
Review, 29, 99-114.
EVANS, W. R. & DAVIS, W. D. 2008. An Examination of Perceived Corporate Citizenship, Job
Applicant Attraction, and CSR Work Role Definition. Business & Society, 1-25.
FERRIS, G. R., BERKSON, H. M. & HARRIS, M. M. 2002. The recruitment interview process:
persuasion and organization reputation promotion in competitive labor markets. Human
Resource Management Review, 12(3), 359-75.
FITZ-ENZ, J. 2000. The ROI of human capital: Measuring the economic value of employee
performance, New York, AMACOM.
FLICK, U. 1998. An introduction to qualitative research: Theory, method and applications.
London: Sage.
FOMBRUN, C. & SHANLEY, M. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.
FORTUNE ‘Most Admired Companies’
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2011/full_list/ (accessed on 15
Oct 2011)
FREEMAN, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New
York Times, September 13, 1970.
157
FREEMAN, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach, Boston, Pitman.
FREY, J.H., FONTANA, A. 1993. The group interview in social research. In MORGAN, D.L.
(Ed), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, pp.20-34. Newbury Park:
Sage.
FRIEDMAN, M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
FRIEDMAN, R. E. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York
Times, 13 September.
GATEWOOD, R.D.; CARROLL, A.B. 1991. Assessment of ethical performance of organization
members: A conceptual framework. The Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 667690
GATEWOOD, R. D., GOWAN, M. A. & LAUTENSCHLAGER, G. J. 1993. Corporate image,
recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal,
36(2), 414-427.
GIBBS, A. 1997 “Focus Groups”, Social Research Update, issue 19, University of Surrey.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE (2011). (website: http://www.gsk.com/mission-strategy/index.htm
accessed on 20 June 2011)
GLESNE, C., PESHKIN, A. 1992. Becoming qualitative researchers. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
GLITZ, B.1998. Focus Groups for Libraries and Librarians. New York: Forbes Custom
Publishing.
GRAYSON, D. 2010. Can CSR help engage employees? Strategic HR Review, 9(3), 46.
GREENBAUM, T. L. 2000. Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
GREENHAUS, J., SUGALSKI, T. & CRISPIN, G. 1978. Relationships between perceptions of
organizational size and the organizational choice process. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 13, 113-125.
GREENING, D. W. & TURBAN, D. B. 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive
advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254-280.
GRIFFIN, J. J. 2000. Corporate social performance : Research directions for the 21st century.
Business & Society, 39(4), 479-491.
GUBA, E. G. 1981 “Investigative Reporting.”. Metaphors for Evaluation, 67-86, edited by Nick L.
Smith, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
HANKE, T. & STARK, W. 2009. Strategy Development: Conceptual Framework on Corporate
Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 507-516.
158
HARRISON, J. S. & FREEMAN, R. E. 1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility and
performance : Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(5), 479-485.
HENDERSON, D. 2001. Misguided virtue: False notions of corporate social responsibility.
London: Institute for Economic Affairs.
HERZBERG, F. H. 1968. One more time : How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business
Review, 46(1), 53-62.
HESLIN, P. A. & OCHOA, J. D. 2008. Understanding and developing strategic corporate social
responsibility. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 125-144.
HIGGINS, M. C. 2001. Follow the leader? The effects of social influence on employer choice.
Group and Organization Management, 26(3), 255-282.
HOLLAND, J. L. 1976. Vocational preferences. In: DUNNETTE, M. D. (ed.) Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand, McNally.
HOLLIDAY, C. O. 2002. Walking the talk: The business case for sustainable development, San
Francisco, Green Leaf Publishing.
HOLMES, S. 1977. Corporate social performance : Past and present areas of commitment.
Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 433-438.
HOPPE, M.J., WELLS, E.A., MORRISON, D.M., GILMORE,M.R., WILSDON, A. 1995. Using
focus groups to discuss sensitive topics with children. Evaluation Review 19 (1): 102114.
HSBC. 2011. HKQAA-HSBC CSR Index [Online]. Hong Kong. Available:
http://www.hsbc.com.hk/1/2/cr/sustainability_at_hsbc/hkqaa [Accessed 20 June 2011].
HUTTON, B. R., D'ANTONIO, L. & JOHNSEN, T. 1998. Socially responsible investing. Business
& Society, 37(3), 281-306.
IBRAHIM, N. A., ANGELIDIS, J. P. 1993. Corporate social responsibility: A comparative
analysis of perceptions of top executives and business students. The Mid-Atlantic
Journal of Business, 29(3), 303.
IBRAHIM, N. A., ANGELIDIS, J. P. & HOWARD, D. P. 2000. The corporate social
responsiveness orientation of hospital directors: Does occupational background make a
difference? Health Care Management Review, 25, 85-92.
IBRAHIM, N. A., ANGELIDIS, J. P. & HOWARD, D. P. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility: A
Comparative Analysis of Perceptions of Practicing Accountants and Accounting
Students. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 157-167.
IBRAHIM, N. A., HOWARD, D. P. & ANGELIDIS, J. P. 2007. The Relationship between
Religiousness and Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation: Are there Differences
Between Business Managers and Students? Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 165-174.
159
IBRAHIM, N.A., PARSA, F. 2005. Corporate social responsiveness orientation: Are there
differences between US and French managers? Review of Business. 26(1), 27.
JACOBS, K. 2006. Discourse Analysis and its Utility for Urban Policy Research.
Urban Policy and Research. 24(1). 39-52.
JOHNSON, H. 1971. Business In Contemporary Society: Framework and Issues, Belmont, CA,
Wadsworth.
JONES, M. T. 1999. The institutional determinants of social responsibility. Journal of Business
Ethics, 20(2), 163-179.
JONES, T., M. 1980, Spring. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California
Management Review, 59-67.
JUDGE, T. A. & BRETZ, R. D. 1992. Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261-271.
JUDGE, T. A. & CABLE, D. M. 1997. Applicant personality, organizational culture, and
organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359.
KANTER, R. M. 1999. From spare change to real change : the social sector as beta site for
business innovation. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 122-132.
KIM, H.-R., LEE, M., LEE, H.-T. & KIM, N.-M. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Employee–Company Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 557-569.
KOK, P., WIELE, T. V. D., MCKENNA, R. & BROWN, A. 2001. A Corporate Social
Responsibility Audit within a Quality Management Framework. Journal of Business
Ethics, 31(4), 285-297.
KOYS, D. J. 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior and
turnover on organisational effectiveness : a unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel
Psychology, 54(1), 101-115.
KPMG 2008. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008.
KRAFT, K. L. 1991. The relative importance of social responsibility in determining organizational
effectiveness : student responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(3), 179-190.
KRAFT, K. L. & SINGHAPAKDI, A. 1995. The relative importance of social responsibility in
determining organizational effectiveness : student responses II. Journal of Business
Ethics, 14(4), 315-326.
KRISTOF, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization,
measurement and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49.
KRUEGER, R. A. 1994. Focus Groups: a Practical guide for Applied Research. 2nd edition,
London: Sage.
160
KRUEGER, R. A., & CASEY, M. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research . 3rd ed.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
LANKSHEAR, A.J. 1993. The use of focus groups in a study of attitudes to student nurse
Assessment. Journal of Advanced Nursing . 18. 1986-89.
LAU, A., PANG, M. 1995. Undergraduates’ career perceptions and first job needs in Hong Kong.
The International Journal of Career Management. V.7, No. 3, 14-24
LEE, J. Ascertaining Patient Condition: A grounded Theory Study of Diagnostic Practice in
Nursing. (2002) A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Lingnan University
LEMMINK, J., SCHUIJF, A. & STREUKENS, S. 2003. The role of corporate image and
company employment image in explaining application intentions. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 24(1), 1-15.
LIEVENS, F. & HIGHHOUSE, S. 2003. The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a
company attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 75.
LIN, C.P. 2009. Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement
Based on Attachment Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 517-531.
LINCOLN, Y.S., GUBA, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
LOFLAND, John. Analysing Social Settings. 1971. Belmont, CA: Sage.
LOFTKABD, J. 1971. Analysing Social Settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
LUCE, R. A., BARBER, A. E. & HILLMAN, A. J. 2001. Good deeds and misdeeds : a mediated
model of the effect of corporate social performance on organizational attractiveness.
Business & Society, 40(4), 397-415.
MADRIZ, E. 2000. Focus groups in feminist research. In DENZIN, N.K., LINCOLN, Y.S.
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Ed.). 821-834. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MAIGNAN, I. & FERRELL, O. C. 1999. Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and
business benefits. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27(4), 455-469.
MAIGNAN, I. & FERRELL, O. C. 2001. Corporate Citizenship as a Marketing Instrument.
European Business Review, 35, 457-84.
MAKOWER, J. 1994. beyond the bottom line: Putting social responsibility to work for your
business and the world, New York, Simon and Schuster.
MANNE, H. G. & WALLICH, H. C. 1972. The modern corporation and social responsibility,
Washington, DC, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
161
MARSHALL, C., ROSSMAN, G. B. 1999. Designing qualitative research. 3rd eds.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
MARTIN, J.C., ANTERASIAN, C. SIEHL. 1983. Values, Strategies, and Financial Performance
in the Fortune 500. Research Paper Number 941, Graduate School of Business,
Stanford University.
MARZ, J. W., POWERS, T. L. & QUEISSER, T. 2003. Corporate and individual influences on
managers' social orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 1.
MASLOW, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. In: IVANCEVICH, J. M. (ed.) Management
and organizational behavior classics. 7th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
MAURER, S. D., HOWE, V. & LEE, T. W. 1992. Organizational recruiting as marketing
management : An interdisciplinary study of engineering graduates. Personnel
Psychology, 45(4), 807-833.
MAYKUT, P., MOREHOUSE, R. 1994. Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and
practical guide. Washington D.C.: Falmer Press.
MCGINTY, R. & REITSCH, A. 1992. Using student perceptions and job characteristics to recruit
recent graduates. Review of Business, 14(1), 38-42.
MCINNES, P., BEECH N. 2005. Time, Fear and Suffering in Post-dualist Modes of Being.
Ephemera: Critical Dialogues on Organization Vol 5, No. 1, pp. 53-67
MCINNES, P., BEECH N., DE CAESTECKER, L., MACINTOSH, R., ROSS, M. (2006) Identity
dynamics as a barrier to organizational change. International Journal of Public
Administration, 29 (12), pp. 1109-1124
MCWILLIAMS, A. & SIEGEL, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm
perspective. Academy of Management Executive, 26(1), 17-127.
MEEHAN, J., MEEHAN, K. & RICHARDS, A. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: the 3C-SR
model. International Journal of Social Economics, 33, 386-398.
MERCER, J. J. 2003. Corporate social responsibility and its importance to consumers.
Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University.
MERRIAM, S.B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education (2nd edition)
(1998). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MITCHELL, R. K., AGLE, B. R. & WOOD, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience : Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
MORGAN, D.L. 1993. Future directions of focus groups. In MORGAN, D.L. (Ed), Successful
Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. 225-244. Newbury Park: Sage.
162
O’HIGGINS, E. R. E. 2009. Corporations, Civil Society, and Stakeholders: An Organizational
Conceptualization. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 157-176.
OSTAS, D. 2004. Cooperate, Comply, or Evade? A Corporate Executive's Social
Responsibilities with Regard to Law. American Business Law Journal, 559-594.
OWENS, R.G. 1982. Methodological rigor in naturalistic enquiry: some issues and answers.
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 18, No.2, 1-21
PANYAN, M., HILLMAN, S., LIGGETT, A. 1997. The role of focus groups in evaluating and
revising teacher education programs. Teacher Education and Special Education,
20(1), 37-46.
PAPAMARCOS, S.D., SAMMA, L.M. 1998. Managing Diversity: Individual differences in workrelated values, gender, and the job characteristics-job involvement linkage. International
Journal of Management. 15(4), 431.
PATTON, M.Q. 1997. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. 3d ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
PATTON, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
PERLS, F. 1973. The Gestalt Approach and Eye Witness to Therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science
and Behavior Books.
PETERSON, D. K. 2004a. Benefits of participation in corporate volunteer programs: employees'
perceptions. Personnel Review, 33(6), 615-627.
PETERSON, D. K. 2004b. The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and
organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43(3), 296.
PETERSON, D. K., RHOADS, A. & VAUGHT, B. C. 2001. Ethical beliefs of business
professionals : A study of gender, age and external factors. Journal of Business Ethics,
31(3), 225-232.
PFEFFER, J. 1994. Competitive advantage through people. California Management Review,
3(2), 9-28.
PHILLIPS, C. 2008. Tapping into the next talent generation. Strategic HR Review, 7, 26-31.
PORTER, M. E. & KRAMER, M. R. 1999. Philanthropy's new agenda : Creating value. Harvard
Business Review, 77(6), 121-130.
PORTER, M. E. & VAN DER LINDE, C. 1995. Green and competitive - ending the stalemate.
Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120-134.
PRESTON, L. E. & POST, J. E. 1975. Private management and public policy, New Jersey,
Prentice-Hall.
163
PUNCHEVA-MICHELOTTI, P. & MICHELOTTI, M. 2009. The role of the stakeholder
perspective in measuring corporate reputation. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(3),
249-274.
RANKEN, N. L. 1987. Corporations as persons : Objections to Goodpaster's 'Principle of Moral
Projection'. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(8), 633.
RAU, B.L., & HYLAND, M.A.M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The
effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 111-137.
RAY, J. R. J. 2006. Investigating Relationships between Corporate Social Responsibility
Orientation and Employer Attractiveness. PhD thesis, The George Washington
University.
RICHARDSON, Laurel. “Writing: A method of Inquiry.” 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research.
2nd ed., edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
RICHTER, U. H. 2010. Liberal Thought in Reasoning on CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 97,
625-649.
RIORDAN, C. M., GATEWOOD, R. D. & BILL, J. B. 1997. Corporate image : Employee
reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 16(4), 401-412.
ROBERTS, A., WALLACE, W., O’FARRELL, P. 2012. Introduction to Business Research 1.
Edinburgh Business School.
ROBSON, C. 2002. Real World Research. 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishing.
ROMAN, R. M., HAYIBOR, S. & AGLE, B. R. 1999. The relationship between social and
financial performance. Business & Society, 38(1), 109-125.
ROSE, J. M. 2006. Corporate Directors and Social Responsibility: Ethics versus Shareholder
Value. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 319-331.
ROWLEY, T. & BERMAN, S. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance.
Business & Society, 39(4), 397-418.
RYNES, S. L. 1989. The employment interview as a recruitment device. In: EDER, R. W. &
FERRIS, G. R. (eds.) The Employment Interview. CA: Sage.
SANCHEZ, C. M. 2000. Motives for corporate philanthropy in El Salvador : Altruism and political
legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 363-376.
SAUSER JR, W. I. 2005. Ethics in business : answering the call. Journal of Business Ethics, 58,
345-357.
SCHNEIDER, B. 1976. Staffing Organizations, Glenview, IL, Scott, Foresman and Company.
SCHNEIDER, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-454.
164
SCHWARTZ, M. S. & CARROLL, A. B. 2003. Corporate social responsibility : A three-domain
approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530.
SCHWARTZ, S. H., STRUCH, N. & BILSKY, W. 1990. Values and intergroup social motives: A
study of Israeli and German students. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53(3), 185-198.
SEN, S. & BHATTACHARYA, V. B. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better?
Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(2), 225-243.
SETHI, S. P. 1975. Dimensions of corporate social performance: an analytical framework.
California Management Review, 17 (3), 58-64.
SHARMAN, M.P., PINKSTON, T.S., SIGERSTAD, T.D. 2000. The effects of managerial values
on social issues evaluation: An empirical examination. Business & Society, 39(2), 144182
SHAW, W. H. & BARRY, V. 1992. Moral Issues in Business, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth
Publishing.
SILBERHORN, D. & WARREN, R. C. 2007. Defining corporate social responsibility: A view from
big companies in Germany and the UK. European Business Review, 19, 352-372.
SINGH, J., SALMONES SANCHEZ, M. D. M. G. & BOSQUE, I. R. 2007. Understanding
Corporate Social Responsibility and Product Perceptions in Consumer Markets: A
Cross-cultural Evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 597-611.
SMITH, W. J., WOKUTCH, R. E., HARRINGTON, K. V. & DENNIS, B. S. 2001. An examination
of the influence of diversity and stakeholder role on corporate social orientation.
Business & Society, 40(3), 266-294.
SMITH, W. J., WOKUTCH, R. E., HARRINGTON, K. V. & DENNIS, B. S. 2004. Organizational
attractiveness and corporate social orientation : Do our values influence our preference
for affirmative action and managing diversity? Business & Society, 43(1), 69.
SPENCE, M. 1973. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374.
SRIVASTAVA, J. N. & LURIE, L. 2001. A consumer perspective on price-matching refund
policies: Effect on price perceptions and search behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28, 296-307.
STEINER, G. A. 1971. Business and Society, New York, Random House.
STERN, P.N. 2007. On solid ground: Essential properties for growing grounded theory. In
Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded theory. 114-126.
London: SAGE.
165
STONE, G. W., JOSEPH, M., PHELPS, L. & BERKEN, A. Winter 2006. A content analysis on
the role of ethics in the business curriculum. Journal for Advancement of Marketing
Education, 9.
STRAUSS, A. & CORBIN, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques. (1990). Newbury park, CA, SAGE.
SWANSON, D. L. 1995 Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the CSP model.
Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 43-64.
SWANSON, D.L. 1999. Toward an integrative theory of business and society: a research
strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 24(3),
506-521.
TAJFEL, H. & TURNER, J. C. 1985. The Social Identity Theory of Group Behavior. In: TAJFEL,
H. (ed.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TANG, L.P., CHIU, R.K., 2003. Income, money, ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, and
unethical behavior: is the love of money the root of evil for Hong Kong employees?
Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 13-30
TAYLOR, S.J., BOGDAN, R. 1998. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
THOMPSON, J. K. & HOOD, J. N. 1993. The practice of corporate social performance in
minority-versus nonminority-owned small businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(3),
197.
TOM, V. R. 1971. The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 573-592.
TONG, S.C. 2007 The Expectation Gap? A case study of new employee in the Hong Kong retail
ranking industry. MA Management dissertation, Nottingham University, U.K.
TURBAN, D. B. & DOUGHERTY, T. W. 1992. Influences of campus recruiting on applicant
attraction to firms. Academy of management Journal, 35(4), 739-765.
TURBAN, D. B., FORRET, M. L. & HENDRICKSON, C. L. 1998. Applicant attraction to firms:
influences of organization reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiter
behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 22-44.
TURBAN, D. B. & GREENING, D. W. 1996. Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658-672.
TURBAN, D. B. & GREENING, D. W. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational
attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of management Journal, 40(3), 658672.
TURBAN, D. B. & KEON, T. L. 1993. Organizational attractiveness : An interactionist
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 184-193.
166
TURKER, D. 2009. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility: A Scale Development Study.
Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 411-427.
VAN MAANEN, J. (ed) 1983. Qualitative Methodology. Beverly Hills, California, Sage
Publications.
VARADARAJAN, P. R. & MENON, A. 1988. Cause-related marketing : A co-alignment of
market strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 58-74.
VITALIANO, D. F. 2010. Corporate social responsibility and labor turnover. Corporate
Governance, 10(5), 563-573.
VROOM, V. R. 1966. Organizational choice: A study of pre- and post-decision processes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 212-226.
WADDOCK, S. 2004. Parallel universes : companies, academics, and the progress of corporate
citizenship. Business & Society Review, 109 (1), 5-42.
WADDOCK, S. & SMITH, N. 2000. Corporate responsibility audits : Doing well by doing good.
Sloan Management Review, 41(2), 75-83.
WADDOCK, S. A., BODWELL, C. & GRAVES, S., B. 2002. Responsibility : The new business
imperative. Academic of Management Executive, 16(2), 132-148.
WADDOCK, S.A., GRAVES, S.B.2000. Performance characteristics of social and traditional
investments. The Journal of Investing, 9(2), 27-38.
WALTON, C. C. 1967. Corporate Social Responsibilities, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.
WANG, Q., YAO Y. 2011. The impact of cultural differences on applicants’ perceived fairness.
College of Tourism and Service management, Nankai University, Tianjin, P.R. China
WANOUS, J. P. 1992. Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation and socialization
of newcomers, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
WARING, P. & LEWER, J. 2004. The impact of socially responsible investment on human
resource management : A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 99.
WARTICK, S. L. & COCHRAN, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance
model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758-769.
WEBB, D. J. & MOHR, L. A. 1998. A typology of consumer responses to cause-related
marketing : From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
17(2), 226-238.
WIERSMA, W. 2000. Research methods in education: an introduction, Boston, MA, Allyn and
Bacon.
167
WOLFE, R.A. 1989. Administrative Innovations: Influence of Power and Context. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
WOLFE, R.A. 1991. The use of Content Analysis to Assess Corporate Social Responsibility.
Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 12, 281-307
WOLFF, B., KNODEL, J.E., SITTITRAI, W. 1991. Focus Groups and Surveys as
Complementary Research Methods: Examples from a Study of the Consequences of
Family Size in Thailand. PSC Research Report, No. 91-213. May 1991.
WOOD, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review,
16(4), 691-718.
WOOD, D. J. 2010. Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review. International Journal
of Management Review, 12(1), 50-84.
WOOD, D. J. & JONES, R. E. 1995. Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical problem in
empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of
Organisational Analysis, 3(3), 229-267.
WULFSON, M. 2001. The ethics of corporate social responsibility and philanthropic ventures.
Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 135-145.
YOSHIKAWA, H. 2006., WEISNER, T. S., LOWE, E. (Eds.). Making it work: Low wage
employment, family life, and child development. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation
YU, L. 2003. The perception of deception. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 11.
168