CSR as Organization–Employee Relationship Management Strategy

Abstract

This study examined corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a probable relationship management strategy that could strengthen relationships between organizations and their employees. Specifically, this study explored linkages between employee perceptions of their organizations’ CSR practices and organization–employee relationship dimensions of trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality. Results, based on a survey (N = 244) with employees of two large, publicly listed companies in India, revealed strong, significant, and positive associations between CSR and organization–employee relationships, especially between legal, ethical, and discretionary dimensions of CSR and relationships. CSR is then proposed as a relationship management strategy, especially in the context of employee relations.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility CSR relationship management employee relations organization–employee relationship organization–public relationships India

Communication scholars researching the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have generated a substantial body of scholarship primarily from instrumental and critical perspectives (e.g., Chaudhri & Wang, 2007; Cloud, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Ihlen, Bartlett, & May, 2011). The instrumental approach takes the view that being socially responsible can generate multiple benefits to organizations including favorable stakeholder attitudes, behavioral intentions, and stronger organization–stakeholder relationships (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Bhattacharya, Korschun, & Sen, 2009). Relationship management theorizing in public relations also posits social responsibility of organizations as a relationship maintenance strategy that could affect the quality of relationships between organizations and their publics (Hall, 2006; Kelly, 2001; Waters, 2009).

Although the instrumental perspective has spawned a large body of work testing the reputational and financial benefits of CSR (e.g., Chaudhri & Wang, 2007; David, Kline, & Dai, 2005; Wigley, 2008), research testing the relational benefits of CSR is limited. Furthermore, most extant research that has tested the effects of CSR on organizational stakeholders has focused on the customer stakeholder group (e.g., David et al., 2005; Wigley, 2008). Following Aguilera et al.’s (2007) and May’s (2008) call for more focus on employees in CSR research, there has been rising interest in research on CSR from the perspective of employees.

Building on earlier calls to test whether the practice of CSR can help in relationship management and to augment the growing literature on CSR from the perspective of employees (Dhanesh, 2012; Lin, Tsai, Joe, & Chiu, 2012; McShane & Cunningham, 2012; Mirvis, 2012), this study sought to understand whether the CSR practices of their employing organizations have any influence on employees’ relationships with their organizations and what that influence, if any, includes. The information technology sector in India was chosen as the site of study for a few reasons. First, India is one of the most important emerging Asian economies with deep traditions of CSR (Mitra, 2007). Second, the information technology sector has been at the forefront of India’s economic growth, employs a large number of people, and is active in the field of CSR (www.eiu.com, Economist Intelligence Unit, 2011; Mitra, 2007). Therefore, findings of this study help fill a critical gap in CSR theorizing, especially from the perspective of an important emerging Asian economy, strengthen theorizing on relationship maintenance strategies, and offer practitioners practical insights that can be used to infuse employee-centered perspectives into their CSR plans, practices, and processes.

Literature Review

Definitions of CSR

The myriad definitions of CSR have tended to cluster into two main groups. The first group, adapting Friedman’s (1962) assertion that the only social responsibility of business is “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game” (p. 133), argues that corporations should be socially responsible because it brings back benefits to the corporation. For instance, to Drucker (1984), “The proper ‘social responsibility’ of business is to tame the dragon, that is, to turn a social problem into economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into well-paid jobs, and into wealth” (p. 62).

The second group, in line with Bowen’s (1953) broader conceptualization of CSR as the “obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (p. 6), defines CSR as corporations’ obligation to society and to stakeholders other than stockholders. Public relations and organizational communication scholars too have mostly followed this more inclusive definition. For instance, Coombs and Holladay (2012) defined CSR as “the voluntary actions that a corporation implements as it pursues its mission and fulfills its perceived obligations to stakeholders, including employees, communities, the environment, and society as a whole” (p. 8).

Carroll (1991) reconciled these apparently conflicting foci on shareholders and stakeholders in the two sets of definitions and defined CSR as “the simultaneous fulfillment of the firm’s economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities” (p. 42). According to Carroll, economic responsibility relates to how society expects businesses to stay profitable and includes the organization’s focus on economic indicators such as maximizing profits. Legal responsibility relates to how society expects businesses to function within the law. Ethical responsibility relates to the ever-changing and fluid ethical norms and practices that society expects businesses to follow and varies from context to context. Finally, philanthropic or discretionary responsibility relates to businesses’ response to society’s expectations that corporations should be good corporate citizens.

This study adopted Carroll’s (1991) definition of CSR because it encompasses a diverse and comprehensive gamut of responsibilities that a corporation has to society, touches upon the simultaneous navigation of often-conflicting responsibilities, indicates the temporal nature of CSR issues, and has been one of the most accepted and widely used definitions of CSR in academic research. In addition to Carroll’s dimensions, related concepts such as triple bottom line (TBL) and sustainable development draw attention to the environmental dimension, which is missing from Carroll’s definition. However, this article argues that Carroll’s dimensions of ethical and discretionary CSR that accommodate changing societal norms and expectations are expansive enough to incorporate environmental aspects also. Accordingly, additional questions on the environment were added to the research instrument.

Relationship Management Theorizing in Public Relations

This study is grounded in relationship management theorizing in the field of public relations because managing relationships between organizations and their publics comprises the core of public relations (Grunig, 1992; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). One of the most entrenched theories in public relations (Gower, 2006), relationship management theory posits that effectively managing relationships between organizations and their key publics over a period of time brings back mutual benefits for the interacting parties (Ledingham, 2008; Men & Hung, 2012).

Public relations scholars have attempted to identify dimensions of organization–public relationships (OPR) and to develop scales for measuring these dimensions (e.g., Bruning & Galloway, 2003; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ledingham, 2001). After reviewing the body of research on relationship management in public relations, Ledingham (2008) found that the Hon and Grunig (1999) scale has been the most widely used instrument to measure OPR dimensions.

Hon and Grunig (1999) developed scales for the dimensions of trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction. Trust refers to the level of confidence that relating parties have in each other and their willingness to open themselves to the other party. It includes perceptions of integrity (parties will follow through on their promises), dependability (parties can be counted on to do what they say they will do), and competence (parties are capable of doing what they say they will do). Control mutuality refers to the degree to which relating parties are satisfied with the amount of control they have over the relationship. Commitment refers to the extent to which relating parties believe that the relationship is worth expending energy on to maintain and promote. Finally, satisfaction refers to the extent to which relating parties feel favorably about each other. The scale has been used and found to be valid and reliable in research on antecedents of OPR (H. Kim, 2007; Seltzer, Gardner, Bichard, & Callison, 2012), the influence of relationship management strategies on OPRs (Hall, 2006; Waters, 2009), and the effect of OPR on variables such as reputation, attitude, behavioral intention, and behavior (Ki & Hon, 2007; Waters, 2009; Yang, 2007) and hence was chosen to measure OPR in this study as well.

In addition to proposing dimensions of relationships, scholars have developed models of OPR (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 2000; Grunig & Huang, 2000) that propose effective relationship maintenance strategies as precursors to determining the quality of OPR (Grunig & Huang, 2000). Relationship maintenance strategies include access, positivity, openness, assurances, networking, and sharing of tasks. Hon and Grunig (1999) also incorporated stewardship, a set of relationship maintenance strategies proposed by Kelly (1998). Stewardship strategies acknowledge the strategic value of previously established relationships to future public relations efforts and comprise four elements of which one is responsibility, wherein the organization acts in a socially responsible manner to those who have supported it. Effectively employing these strategies has been posited to lead to high-quality relationship outcomes.

However, it is interesting to note that although (a) CSR and the stewardship strategy of responsibility to one’s stakeholders have been proposed as probable relationship maintenance strategies (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Jones & Bartlett, 2009; Kelly, 2001) and (b) relationship maintenance strategies have been posited as precursors of relationship quality (Grunig & Huang, 2000), scholarship that empirically explores CSR as an indicator of effective OPR is limited. Nevertheless, there have been promising attempts. For instance, Hall (2006) examined the impact of corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations on the relationship between a company and its customers and found that customers’ awareness of these programs corresponded to a stronger relationship. More pertinent to this study, Waters (2009) examined the influence of stewardship on the fund-raising relationship and found that donors favor these strategies and that responsibility significantly influenced the relationship dimensions of trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment. Do these findings elicited from customers and donors hold true with employees as well?

CSR and Employee Relations

A thorough and extensive review of literature in organizational communication, marketing, organizational behavior, human resources management, and public relations revealed two main areas of scholarship on CSR and employees: examinations of the influence of CSR practices on prospective employees and on current employees. First, a substantial amount of research has focused on the attractiveness of organizational CSR practices to prospective employees or job-seeking populations (e.g., Greening & Turban, 2000; S. Y. Kim & Park, 2011; Lin et al., 2012).

Second, and of more relevance to this study, research has centered on current employees. Within this category, research has focused mostly on CSR and employee volunteering (Muthuri, Matten, & Moon, 2009; Pajo & Lee, 2011) and the positive linkages between employee perceptions of CSR and variables such as employee commitment (Dhanesh, 2012; Peterson, 2004; Turker, 2009), trust (Lin, 2010), satisfaction (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008), and turnover intentions (Stewart, 2011).

However, except for a few studies (e.g., Dhanesh, 2012; Peterson, 2004), most empirical research has focused on only selected dimensions of CSR such as CSR in the community (e.g., Hall, 2006). This study attempts to contribute to our understanding of the influence of the four dimensions of CSR—discretionary, ethical, legal, and economic—on the four dimensions of relationships between organizations and their employees—trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction. Accordingly, the following research questions were posited to guide this study.

Research Question 1: Are employees’ perceptions of their organizations’ CSR practices significantly related to their relationships with their employing organization?

Research Question 2: Which dimensions of CSR are most significantly related to the employees’ relationships with their employing organizations?

Method

Sampling

This study employed a survey research method and an online, self-administered questionnaire because it is cheaper and faster to administer, is easier for employees to answer at their own convenience, and enables easy follow-up and controlled sampling (Bryman, 2004). To identify companies that are actively engaged in CSR, the sampling frame chosen was Standard & Poor’s India ESG Index, a list of 50 companies selected from the first 500 Indian companies by total market capitalization on the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. The criteria for selection included the companies’ environmental, social, and governance practices, parameters that closely correspond to indicators of CSR. All five information technology companies that were in the sampling frame were invited to participate in the survey. One of the three companies that agreed to participate could offer access to only 100 employees. Hence, the pilot study was conducted in this organization, and the data were excluded from the final analysis. The remaining two organizations that took part in the final survey were typical of the five in the sampling frame, organizations with a large number of employees and active in CSR. On behalf of the researcher, one organization sent an invitation to participate to approximately 500 employees, and received 114 usable responses (response rate of 22.8%). The other organization emailed the invitation to approximately 800 employees, and received 130 usable responses (response rate of 16.25%). Multiple waves of invitation/reminders were sent over a period of 4 weeks. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample.

Table 1.

Description of Sample.

Demographic characteristic	Frequency	%
Age range (in years)
20-30	159	65.16
31-40	33	13.52
41-50	05	2.05
51-60	01	0.41
Did not specify	46	18.85
Total	244	100
Gender
Male	117	47.95
Female	78	31.97
Did not specify	49	20.08
Total	244	100
Tenure (in years)
<1	33	13.52
1-5	128	52.46
6-10	28	11.48
11-15	05	2.05
16-20	04	1.64
>20	0	0
Did not specify	46	18.85
Total	244	100
Volunteering frequency
Never	51	20.90
Once	34	13.93
Twice	35	14.34
Thrice	09	3.69
More than thrice	68	27.87
Did not specify	47	19.26
Total	244	100

The Instrument

The construct of CSR was measured by adapting the instrument developed by Maignan and Ferrell (2000) because it is based on Carroll’s (1991) four dimensions of CSR, it has been one of the most widely used scales in CSR research, and it was designed specifically for employees. Measuring 18 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), the scale comprised items about the four CSR dimensions: discretionary, ethical, legal, and economic. Two questions on environment were added to make up for the lack of focus on environment in the scale. Although the original scale had questions on education, another item “This organization supports private and/or public educational institutions” was added because a core component of CSR programs in India is patronage of educational institutions (Mitra, 2007). The three additional questions added to the discretionary dimension have been highlighted in the instrument (see appendix).

Relationship between employees and their organizations was measured using Hon and Grunig’s (1999) shortest version of the OPR scale, which is the most widely used scale in OPR research and has been found to be reliable and valid in multiple studies (Ki & Hon, 2007; H. Kim, 2007; Ni, 2007; Seltzer et al., 2012; Waters, 2009; Yang, 2007). The scale had 18 items measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). However, one item from the dimension of control mutuality had to be dropped during data analysis as it caused issues with scale reliability; thus, 17 items were used in the data analysis.

Data Analysis

As the CSR scale had been modified, Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted to test for scale reliability. Although the generally accepted standard for scale reliability is .80, according to Nunnally (1967), an alpha coefficient of .50 or greater is sufficient. Once reliabilities above .70 had been ensured, indicators were grouped into their respective dimensions.

Correlations and regressions were employed to examine the data for relationships among dependent and independent variables because they are the most commonly used statistical methods to test for relationships among constructs (Bryman & Cramer, 2009). The independent variables in this study were the four CSR dimensions—discretionary, ethical, legal, and economic. The dependent variables were the four OPR dimensions—trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction. The control variables were age of the employee, tenure with the organization, and volunteering frequency.

As the results of the correlation tests revealed high correlations between the four dimensions of CSR, the regression analysis was set up such that each dependent variable was regressed onto one independent variable in analysis to avoid potential issues of multicollinearity. Five models for each of the four dependent variables—trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction—were tested. In the baseline model, the dependent variable was regressed onto the control variables of age, tenure with the organization, and volunteering frequency. In the second model, the dependent variable was regressed onto the control variables and discretionary CSR. In the third model, the dependent variable was regressed onto the control variables and ethical CSR. In the fourth model, the dependent variable was regressed onto the control variables and legal CSR. Finally, in the fifth model, the dependent variable was regressed onto the control variables and economic CSR. The researcher examined the goodness of fit for each model to determine the dimension of CSR that had the most influence on each dependent variable.

Results

The dimensions of CSR were discretionary (α = .85), ethical (α = .82), legal (α = .75), and economic (α = .74). The dimensions of relationships were trust (α = .91), commitment (α = .90), and satisfaction (α = .93). Among the set of items measuring control mutuality, one of the items—“in dealing with people like me this organization has a tendency to throw its weight around”—posed problems in reliability. After deleting this item, control mutuality had a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. The measures of reliability were satisfactory, as all items except for two met or exceeded .80, the generally accepted standard for scale reliability (Bryman, 2004). The remaining two items had Cronbach’s alphas higher than .70, another acceptable standard (Nunnally, 1967). See appendix for items and Cronbach’s alphas.

Overall, the four dimensions of CSR were evaluated positively by employees. Ethical responsibility was rated the highest (M = 4.09, SD = 0.625), followed by economic (M = 4.01, SD = 0.648), discretionary (M = 3.89, SD = 0.617), and legal responsibilities (M = 3.89, SD = 0.726). The means, standard deviations, and correlations for the CSR and relationship constructs are shown in Table 2. Although respondents evaluated the four dimensions of CSR highly, the results of the regression analysis, discussed next, revealed that some dimensions were more strongly associated with specific relationship dimensions than others.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for the CSR and Relationship Constructs.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Discretionary CSR	3.89	0.617	—	.782	.718	.658	.759	.717	.740	.722
2. Ethical CSR	4.09	0.625		—	.821	.717	.781	.696	.741	.691
3. Legal CSR	3.89	0.726			—	.716	.764	.709	.744	.735
4. Economic CSR	4.01	0.648				—	.686	.630	.638	.610
5. Trust	3.55	0.811					—	.902	.914	.916
6. Control mutuality	3.40	0.890						—	.888	.880
7. Commitment	3.52	0.874							—	.918
8. Satisfaction	3.46	0.891								—

Note. All correlation coefficients have p ≤ .001. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

CSR and Trust

Although the respondents’ ages appeared as a significant predictor of trust, when combined with the other variables of CSR, it ceased to be significant. Most importantly, results showed that although all four dimensions of CSR are significant predictors of trust, F change was greatest when the dimension of ethical responsibility (β = .777, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .609, F change = 275.648, p ≤ .001) was added onto the baseline model, followed by legal (β = .773, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .579, F change = 242.009, p ≤ .001), discretionary (β = .764, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .576, F change = 239.531, p ≤ .001), and economic responsibilities (β = .676, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .466, F change = 151.742, p ≤ .001). These findings suggest that among the four dimensions, the ethical dimension appears to be the most important to respondents.

CSR and Control Mutuality

Although the respondents’ volunteering frequency was a significant predictor of control mutuality, when combined with the other variables of CSR, it was not. Further results revealed that although the four dimensions of CSR were significantly and positively related to control mutuality, F change was greatest when the dimension of discretionary responsibility (β = .711, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .503, F change = 176.836, p < .001) was added onto the baseline model, followed by legal (β = .711, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .494, F change = 170.394, p < .001), ethical (β = .683, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .477, F change = 159.259, p < .001), and economic responsibilities (β = .615, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .390, F change = 109.980, p < .001).

CSR and Commitment

Although the respondents’ volunteering frequency was a significant predictor of commitment, when combined with the other variables of CSR, it lost significance. Results showed that all four dimensions of CSR are significantly and positively related to commitment. However, F change was the greatest when legal responsibility (β = .763, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .549, F change = 219.165, p ≤ .001) was added onto the baseline model, followed by ethical (β = .743, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .544, F change = 214.228, p ≤ .001), discretionary (β = .747, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .537, F change = 208.655, p ≤ .001), and economic responsibilities (β = .635, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .398, F change = 118.026, p ≤ .001).

CSR and Satisfaction

Although the respondents’ volunteering frequency and age were significant predictors of satisfaction, when combined with the other variables of CSR, they were not. Although the four dimensions of CSR are significant predictors of satisfaction, F change was greatest when legal responsibility (β = .735, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .532, F change = 197.027, p ≤ .001) was added onto the baseline model, followed by discretionary (β = .717, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .517, F change = 184.084, p ≤ .001), ethical (β = .674, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .474, F change = 153.247, p ≤ .001), and economic responsibilities (β = .589, p ≤ .001; Adj. R² = .366, F change = 97.001, p ≤ .001).

To summarize, the first research question asked whether employee perceptions of their organizations’ CSR practices were significantly related to their relationships with their organizations. Results showed strong, positive, and significant linkages. The second research question asked which dimension of CSR was most significantly related to each of the relational dimensions. The results showed that the legal dimension was most significantly related to both commitment and satisfaction, the ethical dimension to trust, and the discretionary dimension to control mutuality.

Discussion

The findings of this study provide empirical support for CSR as a relationship maintenance strategy that could strengthen relationships between organizations and their employees in terms of trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction. These effects could in turn engender other benefits such as positive attitudes and higher retention rates (Bruning & Lambe, 2008; Seltzer et al., 2012). Thus, these findings empirically strengthen the relational argument for engaging with CSR.

More importantly, although the results revealed strong correlations between the multidimensional construct of CSR and OPR, the results of the regression analysis foregrounded the importance of the legal, ethical, and discretionary dimensions over the economic dimension of CSR. The legal dimension appeared to be the most important especially with respect to commitment and satisfaction.

This finding could perhaps be explained by India’s economic context. Post economic liberalization in the 1990s, India had emerged from an era of crippling crony capitalism aided by a restrictive licensing system. The sunrise industries, such as information technology, were seen as “clean” industries staying within legal and regulatory limits. Employees in such industries might have a preference for companies that have strong corporate governance structures and consequently could have foregrounded the importance of legal and ethical aspects of CSR over economic and discretionary.

However, this finding may not be restricted to India and/or the information technology sector. Although legal compliance in many countries is a basic expectation and may not be a predictor of strong employee relations, previous research conducted with employees across industries and other contexts has also found that employees value legal and ethical aspects of CSR over the other two (Dhanesh, 2012; Peterson, 2004; Valentine & Fleischman, 2008). This could be because effects of non-compliance would perhaps be most acutely felt by employees, particularly in terms of job losses. For example, the founder and CEO of one of the most reputed information technology companies in India, Satyam, had engaged in massive accounting fraud, blatantly flouting legal and ethical boundaries, almost leading to the dissolution of the company with devastating impacts on its over 40,000 employees. Enron, WorldCom, and Olympus Corporation offer similar examples from other contexts.

Finally, the findings also revealed that the employees derived a sense of control mutuality from the discretionary CSR practices employed by their organizations. This could be due to the influence of the employees’ volunteering programs in the participating companies. Active employee engagement in the planning and operational aspects of implementing CSR could give employees a sense of collaboration and the feeling that their opinions and inputs are taken into consideration, thus enhancing their perceptions of control over their relationship with their organization. These findings have important implications for theory and practice.

Implications for Theory

This study contributes to the literature by offering empirical support to the argument that being socially responsible could be an effective relationship maintenance strategy for organizations, thus augmenting the literature on CSR and relationship management. Most studies on relationship maintenance strategies have examined the influence of strategies such as openness, access, and networking. This study tested the influence of Kelly’s (2001) stewardship strategy of responsibility, operationalized as CSR, and found that social responsibility can be an effective relationship maintenance strategy, especially in the relationship between organizations and their employees. These findings support Hall’s (2006) and Waters’ (2009) work on establishing social responsibility as an effective relationship maintenance strategy with customers and donors.

However, most importantly, the study examined and found which among the four dimensions of CSR have relatively more influence on the relationships between organizations and their employees. The results are a key contribution to the literature as most extant research on CSR and relationships are unidimensional, examining only one dimension of CSR with one dimension of relationship, such as commitment or satisfaction. Such studies have found significant relationships between the two constructs (e.g., Hall, 2006). However, when this study examined multiple dimensions of CSR, the ethical and legal dimensions appeared to exert stronger influences on relationships than the discretionary dimension. This finding empirically supports May’s (2008) argument that the ethical engagement of employees should be one of the key focus areas in building the CSR agenda of organizations.

Implications for Practice

The results revealed that the ethical engagement of employees helps to engender the employees’ trust in their organizations. Furthermore, employees’ commitment to and satisfaction with their organizations were most strongly associated with the organizations’ adherence to the laws of the land in which they operate. Organizations could make use of these findings as a tool for talent attraction and retention. This is even more pertinent for organizations in the knowledge sector, which are people-intensive and face challenges in attracting and retaining talent. Companies that are ranked highly on corporate governance and/or ethical parameters can leverage their ranking as a talent attraction and retention tool, findings supported by previous research as well (S. Y. Kim & Park, 2011; Lin et al., 2012).

Although employees foregrounded legal and ethical aspects of CSR, the importance of discretionary CSR was not lost on them as there was a significant relationship between discretionary CSR and control mutuality. Accordingly, it may be worthwhile for organizations to invest in typical “discretionary” activities such as (a) supporting local businesses, charities, and educational institutions; (b) reducing resource wastage; and (c) supporting employees to acquire additional life skills or attain work–life balance (Maignan & Ferrell, 2000).

Limitations and Future Research

Regarding the results that fulfilling an organization’s social responsibilities appears to be an effective strategy in managing relationships with its employees, this study has its limitations. Social desirability bias could have affected the results, because the participants knew that their relationships with their employers were being investigated. Also, the findings could have been influenced by the industry and country contexts of this study.

To address these limitations, future research could test the influence of multiple dimensions of CSR on employee–organization relationships across industries and countries. Furthermore, an interpretive qualitative study that explores the whys behind the findings of this study might add richness and depth to the findings of this quantitative study. For instance, it would be intriguing to probe why employees across contexts foreground legal and ethical aspects of CSR over the other two dimensions. Finally, the respondents who volunteered are more likely to be prosocial and value CSR. This possibility of respondent self-selection could constrain the generalizability of the findings. Despite these limitations, this study provides some initial empirical support to the instrumental argument that being socially responsible could be an effective relationship management strategy for organizations, especially in the context of employee relations. The study also lends support for emphasizing legal, ethical, and discretionary dimensions of CSR over the economic dimension in maintaining positive employee relations.

Footnotes

Appendix

Items and Cronbach’s Alphas of the Constructs of CSR and Organization–Public Relationship

Constructs and items
1. Discretionary CSR (α = .852)
This organization gives adequate contribution to charities.
This organization supports private and/or public educational institutions (additional question).
This organization has a program in place to reduce the amount of energy and materials wasted in its business.
This organization participates in activities that aim to protect and/or improve the quality of the natural environment (additional question).
This organization encourages partnerships with local businesses.
This organization implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment (additional question).
This organization supports employees who acquire additional education.
This organization has flexible policies that enable employees to better co-ordinate work and personal life.
2. Ethical CSR (α = .817)
This organization has a comprehensive code of conduct.
This organization is recognized as a trustworthy company.
In this organization, fairness toward co-workers and/or business partners is an integral part of the employee evaluation process.
The salespersons and employees of this organization are required to provide full and accurate information to all customers.
This organization has a confidential procedure in place for employees to report any misconduct at work.
3. Legal CSR (α = .757)
This organization seeks to comply with all laws regulating hiring and employee benefits.
This organization has internal policies that prevent discrimination in employees’ compensation and promotion.
The managers of this organization try to comply with the law.
This organization has programs that encourage the diversity of its workforce.
4. Economic CSR (α = .743)
This organization has been successful at maximizing its profits.
This organization strives to lower its operating costs.
The top management of this organization establishes long-term strategies for the business.
This organization closely monitors employees’ productivity.
5. Trust (α = .913)
This organization treats people like me fairly and justly.
Whenever this organization makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about people like me.
This organization can be relied on to keep its promises.
I believe that this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions.
I feel very confident about this organization’s skills.
This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.
6. Control mutuality (α = .890)
This organization and people like me are attentive to what each other say.
This organization believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.
This organization really listens to what people like me have to say.
7. Commitment (α = .896)
I feel that this organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to people like me.
I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with people like me.
There is a long-lasting bond between this organization and people like me.
Compared with other organizations I value my relationship with this organization more.
8. Satisfaction (α = .926)
I am happy with this organization.
Both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship.
Most people like me are happy in their interactions with this organization.
Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this organization has established with people like me.

Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Milagros Rivera, Dr. Cho Hichang, Dr. Mohan J. Dutta, Dr. Linda M. Perry, the Editor, and the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author’s Note

An earlier version of this article was presented at the International Communication Association Conference in May 2012.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was part of my doctoral dissertation that was funded by the Graduate Student Research Support Scheme for thesis-related Fieldwork offered by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the National University of Singapore.

Author Biography

Ganga S. Dhanesh (PhD, National University of Singapore) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communications and New Media at National University of Singapore, Singapore. Her main research interests include corporate social responsibility, employee relations, and strategic communication management.

References

Aguilera

R. V.

Rupp

D. E.

Williams

C. A.

Ganapathi

(2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836-863. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.25275678

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Korschun

Sen

(2009). Strengthening stakeholder-company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 257-272. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9730-3

Bowen

H. R.

(1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Broom

G. M.

Casey

Ritchey

(2000). Concept and theory of organization-public relationships. In Ledingham

J. A.

Bruning

S. D.

(Eds.), Relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bruning

S. D.

Galloway

(2003). Expanding the organization-public relationship scale: Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29, 309-319. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(03)00042-0

Bruning

S. D.

Lambe

K. E.

(2008). Linking worldview, relationship attitudes, and behavioral outcomes: Implications for the study and practice of public relations. Journal of Promotion Management, 14, 139-151. doi:10.1080/10496490802620313

Bryman

(2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bryman

Cramer

(2009). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 14, 15 and 16: A guide for social scientists. New York, NY: Routledge.

Carroll

A. B.

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

10.

Chaudhri

Wang

(2007). Communicating CSR on the Internet: A case study of the top 100 information technology companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 232-247. doi:10.1177/0893318907308746

11.

Cloud

D. L.

(2007). Corporate social responsibility as oxymoron: Universalization and exploitation at Boeing. In May

Cheney

Roper

(Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 219-231). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

12.

Coombs

T. W.

Holladay

S. J.

(2012). Managing corporate social responsibility: A communication approach. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

13.

David

Kline

Dai

(2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate identity, and purchase intention: A dual-process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 291-313. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1703_4

14.

Dhanesh

G. S.

(2012). The view from within: Internal publics and CSR. Journal of Communication Management, 16, 39-58. doi:10.1108/13632541211197987

15.

Drucker

P. F.

(1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 26, 53-63. doi:10.2307/41165066

16.

Friedman

(1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Gower

K. K.

(2006). Public relations research at the crossroads. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 177-190. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_6

18.

Greening

D. W.

Turban

D. B.

(2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39, 254-280. doi:10.1177/000765030003900302

19.

Grunig

J. E.

(Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Grunig

J. E.

Huang

Y. H.

(2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In Ledingham

J. A.

Bruning

S. D.

(Eds.), Relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Hall

M. R.

(2006). Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations: Measuring relationship-building results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 1-21. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1801_1

22.

Hon

Grunig

J. E.

(1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville: Institute for Public Relations Research, University of Florida. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/measuring-relationships/

23.

Ihlen

Bartlett

J. L.

May

(Eds.). (2011). The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

24.

Economist Intelligence Unit. (2011, January). India Country Report. Retrieved from http://www.eiu.com/

25.

Jones

Bartlett

J. L.

(2009). The strategic value of corporate social responsibility: A relationship management framework for public relations practice. PRism, 6. Retrieved from http://www.prismjournal.org/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal_Files/Jones_Bartlett.pdf

26.

Kelly

K. S.

(1998, June). Stewardship: The missing step in the public relations process. Paper presented at the first Annual International, Interdisciplinary Research Conference, Public Relations Society of America Educator Academy, College Park, MD.

27.

Kelly

K. S.

(2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In Heath

R. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 279-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Hon

L. C.

(2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 1-23. doi:10.1080/10627260709336593

29.

Kim

(2007). A multilevel study of antecedents and a mediator of employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 167-197. doi:10.1080/10627260701290695

30.

Kim

S. Y.

Park

(2011). Corporate social responsibility as an organizational attractiveness for prospective public relations practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 639-653. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0886-x

31.

Ledingham

J. A.

(2001). Government-community relationships: Extending the relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27, 285-295. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00087-X

32.

Ledingham

J. A.

(2008). Cross-cultural public relations: A review of existing models with suggestions for a post-industrial public relations pyramid. Journal of Promotion Management, 14, 225-241. doi:10.1080/10496490802637853

33.

Ledingham

J. A.

Bruning

S. D.

(Eds.). (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

34.

Lin

C. P.

(2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 517-531. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6

35.

Lin

C. P.

Tsai

Y. H.

Joe

S. W.

Chiu

C. K.

(2012). Modeling the relationship among perceived corporate citizenship, firm’s attractiveness, and career success expectation. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 83-93. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0949-z

36.

Maignan

Ferrell

O. C.

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

37.

May

(2008). Reconsidering strategic corporate social responsibility: Public relations and ethical engagement of employees in a global economy. In Zerfass

Van Ruler

Sriramesh

(Eds.), Public relations research: European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 365-383). The Netherlands: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

38.

McShane

Cunningham

(2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 81-100. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1064-x

39.

Men

L. J. R.

Hung

C. J. F.

(2012). Exploring the roles of organization-public relationships in the strategic management process: Towards an integrated framework. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6, 151-173. doi:10.1080/1553118X.2011.605778

40.

Mirvis

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

41.

Mitra

(2007). It’s only business! India’s corporate social responsiveness in a globalized world. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

42.

Muthuri

J. N.

Matten

Moon

(2009). Employee volunteering and social capital: Contributions to corporate social responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20, 75-89. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00551.x

43.

(2007). Refined understanding of perspectives on employee-organization relationships: Themes and variations. Journal of Communication Management, 11, 53-70. doi:10.1108/13632540710725987

44.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

45.

Pajo

Lee

(2011). Corporate-sponsored volunteering: A work design perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 467-482. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0665-0

46.

Peterson

D. K.

(2004). The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business & Society, 43, 296-319. doi:10.1177/0007650304268065

47.

Seltzer

Gardner

Bichard

Callison

(2012). PR in the ER: Managing internal organization–public relationships in a hospital emergency department. Public Relations Review, 38, 128-136. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.002

48.

Stewart

R. W.

(2011). You support diversity, but are you ethical? Examining the interactive effects of diversity and ethical climate perceptions on turnover intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 453-465. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0663-2

49.

Turker

(2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 189-204. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9993-8

50.

Valentine

Fleischman

(2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 159-172. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9306-z

51.

Waters

R. D.

(2009). Measuring stewardship in public relations: A test exploring impact on the fundraising relationship. Public Relations Review, 35, 113-119. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.012

52.

Wigley

(2008). Gauging consumers’ responses to CSR activities: Does increased awareness make cents? Public Relations Review, 34, 306-308. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.034

53.

Yang

(2007). An integrated model for organization-public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 91-121. doi:10.1080/10627260701290612