The Power of Meaningful Work

Abstract

This paper develops and tests a model of the impact of employees’ awareness of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives on perceived task significance and important attitudinal and behavioral work outcomes of service employees in the hospitality industry. Data from 211 employees of a United Kingdom–based hotel chain provide support for the concept that employees should be made aware of CSR actions. Results suggest that employees’ awareness of CSR activities is positively related to job satisfaction, engagement in helping and voice behavior, and personal initiative, and CSR awareness is negatively related to emotional exhaustion. These relationships are partly or fully mediated by perceived task significance. We discuss implications of this research for theory and practice, and provide several recommendations for how managers in the hospitality industry can increase employees’ awareness for corporate engagement in CSR initiatives.

Keywords

corporate social responsibility (CSR)hospitality industry task significance work design

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received considerable attention in the hospitality industry (e.g., Lane 1982; Rowe 1986; Stuckey and Jones 1996; Woods and Berger 1989), and guests’ attention to this phenomenon continues to grow. CSR researchers have suggested that to gain a balanced view of organizational effectiveness, service firms should consider both the financial and the CSR-related performance of their business (Jackson and Parsa 2009), and have urged them to integrate CSR into their business strategies (Bohdanowicz and Zientara 2008; Manson 2006; Mullen 2006; Pérez and Rodriguez del Bosque 2012). Moreover, there is increasing evidence that large, multinational hospitality organizations not only implement CSR activities but also report on these activities on their websites and in their annual reports (Holcomb, Upchurch, and Okumus 2007). Similar evidence is available for small, independent hotels (Njite, Hancer, and Slevitch 2011), as well as for the restaurant industry (Jones, Comfort, and Hillier 2006).

The increasing business relevance of the topic has been accompanied by a steady surge in research on the impact of corporate CSR activities (Kechiche and Soparnot 2012; Scherer and Palazzo 2011). To date, this research has been predominantly focused on three distinct groups of stakeholders: shareholders and investors, customers, and prospective employees. With regard to shareholders and potential investors, the launch of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) in 1999 highlights the relevance of CSR initiatives. The DJSI rates companies according to fixed categories and compares them within their industry. The success of this index over the last eleven years shows that sustainability initiatives are of significant interest for shareholders and potential investors. Moreover, research suggests that CSR performance is related to the financial success of organizations (Cochran and Wood 1984; Johnson and Greening 1994; McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988). Such a positive effect of engagement in CSR on organizational effectiveness (Kraft 1991), volume of business (Boluk 2013), and financial performance (Park and Lee 2009) has also been suggested for service industries in general and the hospitality industry in particular.

In a similar vein, the consequences of CSR activities for customers have been investigated, and evidence for a relationship between CSR performance and consumer decisions has accumulated (Romm 1994; Solomon and Hanson 1985; Vandermerwe and Oliff 1990). Service industry research also suggests that corporate engagement in CSR is positively associated with customer assessments of service quality, customer loyalty, brand identification, and brand equity (Calabrese and Lancioni 2008; de los Salmones, Crespon, and del Bosque 2005; He and Li 2011; Poolthong and Mandhachitara 2009), and similar findings are reported in research specifically focused on the restaurant industry (Choi 2011; Hsin-Hui, Parsa, and Self 2010).

As far as prospective employees are concerned, research has suggested that firms that engage in CSR activities may develop more positive images and that, as a result, CSR may contribute to creating a competitive advantage in the labor market (Davis 1973; Fombrun and Shanley 1990). Drawing on social identity theory and signaling theory, Turban and Greening (1996) showed that firms’ corporate social performance (CSP) is positively related to reputation and increases their attractiveness as employers. Along the same lines, other researchers have argued that prospective employees could be more strongly attracted to organizations that engage in CSR activities (e.g., Brammer, Millington, and Rayton 2007; Greening and Turban 2000; Peterson 2004; Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, and Williams 2006; Turban and Greening 1996). CSR also becomes more relevant from the employers’ perspective. For instance, recent hospitality research suggests that recruiters in the hospitality industry are increasingly sensitive to CSR-related values in job candidates and use these value orientations as an additional selection criterion (Day et al. 2013).

Given the depth of research on the impact of corporate CSR activities on shareholders and investors, customers, and prospective employees, there is a surprising lack of research on its impact on another important set of stakeholders: the organization’s current employees. In this research, we attempt to fill this gap and investigate the relationship between corporate CSR activities and important outcomes at the employee level.

CSR and Job Design: The Importance of Meaningful Work

Research on job design has a long tradition in the organizational behavior field, dating back to Frederick Taylor’s work on scientific management at the turn of the twentieth century (see, for example, Taylor 1911) and to the human relations movement (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939). A dominant place in research on work design is occupied by Hackman and Oldham’s (1975; 1976) path-breaking work on job characteristics theory. Hackman and Oldham identified five “core job characteristics,” which predict important outcomes such as job satisfaction, motivation, performance, and turnover. These core job characteristics include skill variety (the variety of different activities that need to be carried out in a job), task identity (the degree to which the job allows for the completion of a “whole” identifiable piece of work), autonomy (the extent to which the job provides for independence and discretion), and feedback (the extent to which the job or other people provide feedback on the effectiveness with which the job is carried out). For our purposes, a fifth core job characteristic is most essential: task significance.

Task significance is defined as “the degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives or work of other people—whether in the immediate organization or in the external environment” (Hackman and Oldham 1975, 161). The task significance construct has triggered a substantial amount of research on how individual perceptions of being able to make a difference for others are related to individual job attitudes and work performance (Grant 2007; 2008). Job design researchers have argued that job characteristics are not simply an objective given, but that jobholders actively participate in shaping the characteristics of their jobs and develop their own perceptions of these characteristics (Wrzesniewski and Dutton 2001). One of the driving forces in this process is the search for meaning in work. In short, meaningful work requires that employees understand the significance of what they do (Wrzesniewski, Dutton, and Debebe 2003).

We suggest that organizational engagement in CSR is one mechanism by which the perceived meaning in work can be increased. When organizations engage in CSR activities, they actively contribute to the economic, ecological, or social environment around them. Such activities enhance the image of the organization and allow employees to construct a positive identity for themselves and the organization in which they work as a place that cares for and contributes to the well-being of others. This perception should increase task significance, which involves the perception of making a positive difference in the lives of others.

For organizational CSR activities to have positive consequences for individual perceptions of task significance, personal involvement or engagement in such initiatives would certainly be beneficial. But this does not constitute a necessary condition. Rather, what is critical is that employees are aware of the organization’s engagement in CSR initiatives. Hence, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1: Awareness of CSR activities is positively related to perceived task significance.

Task significance is one of the job characteristics that, according to Hackman and Oldham (1975; 1976), contribute to positive individual work outcomes. They suggest that when work is experienced as being meaningful, individual job satisfaction should increase. As a baseline to our investigation, and in replication of the findings of previous work design research, we suggest the following:

Hypothesis 2: Task significance is positively related to job satisfaction.

Beyond its attitudinal impact, however, task significance should also have behavioral consequences. Since high task significance is associated with strong internal work motivation (Hackman and Oldham 1975; 1976), employees who experience high task significance should be more likely to engage in discretionary types of work behavior, such as organizational citizenship behavior (Organ 1988), for which intrinsic motivation is an important antecedent.

Discretionary work behaviors are of particular importance in the service industry, as they are strongly related to customer satisfaction (Raub and Liao 2010). Two types of organizational citizenship behavior that are frequently studied in the hospitality industry are helping behavior and voice behavior (Stamper and Van Dyne 2001). Helping behavior involves supporting or assisting colleagues who are faced with difficult tasks or suffer from work overload. Voice behavior involves making constructive suggestions for improvements in work processes or procedures. More recently, research on discretionary work behaviors has been extended to include “proactive” types of work behavior, including personal initiative (Frese et al. 1997; Griffin, Neal, and Parker 2007). Personal initiative at work involves a long-term oriented, proactive, change-oriented, and persistent approach to work. The positive relationship between individual initiative in service work and desirable individual and organizational outcomes has been established (Rank et al. 2007; Raub and Liao 2012). Given that the internal motivation generated by high task significance should be translated into more engagement in discretionary work behaviors, we suggest the following:

Hypothesis 3: Task significance is positively related to helping behavior, voice behavior, and personal initiative.

Service work is often emotionally challenging (Grandey, Dickter, and Sin 2004; Hochschild 1983). The diversity and range of customer demands, the need for frequent emotional labor, and encounters with demanding or even aggressive customers take a toll on service employees’ emotional resources. Coping with the emotional demands of service work should be facilitated when service employees perceive their work as meaningful. As a result, with high experienced task significance, the potential negative impact of emotionally challenging service work should be at least partly buffered, and task significance should be negatively related to emotional exhaustion. We therefore suggest the following:

Hypothesis 4: Task significance is negatively related to emotional exhaustion.

In the preceding hypotheses, we suggested that the awareness of organizational involvement in CSR activities contributes to perceived task significance, which, in turn, should be beneficially related to a range of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The combination of these hypotheses suggests a mediated model in which the beneficial effect of employees’ awareness of corporate CSR activities is fully or partly mediated by task significance. Therefore,

Hypothesis 5: Awareness of CSR activities is positively related to job satisfaction, helping behavior, voice behavior, and personal initiative, and negatively related to emotional exhaustion, and this relationship is at least partly mediated by task significance.

Exhibit 1 provides an overview of our hypothesized model.

Exhibit 1:

Theoretical Model.

Method

Sample and Procedures

We collected data with the support of a hotel chain based in the United Kingdom, which comprises two sister brands. The data came from four hotel properties, which belonged to the two different brands and were located in two primary cities in the United Kingdom. Due to the fact that a substantial proportion of the employees in our sample had limited access to a computer, we used paper-based questionnaires. The data collection process was officially announced by the human resources managers of the participating properties, and employees were allowed to fill out questionnaires during their remunerated working hours. Data collection was personally overseen by a member of the investigating team to guarantee full confidentiality for the participating employees.

The sample was limited to the four hotel properties with a total of 330 eligible employees. Overall, 211 employees completed questionnaires, corresponding to a 64 percent response rate. The mean age of respondents was 28.25 years (SD = 8.51), their mean tenure was 2.46 years (SD = 2.51), and 52 percent of the respondents were female.

Measures

The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first part assessed employees’ awareness of CSR initiatives. The second part focused on their perception of several work design variables, including perceived task significance. The third part included work outcome dimensions. We used established measures to assess the central variables of the theoretical model, as described below. The survey instrument was pre-tested on a medium-size sample of hospitality students and hospitality managers. This pilot test did not reveal any issues with regard to the face validity of the items in the instrument. Scale reliabilities proved to be acceptable and similar in range to those observed in the main study.

Awareness of sustainability initiatives

The four items addressing awareness of sustainability initiatives were adapted from Raub (2008). Sample items include, “I am very aware of HOTEL’s CSR initiatives” and “I have a great deal of knowledge about HOTEL’s CSR initiatives” (α = .86).

Task significance

Task significance was assessed with three items from Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). Sample items include, “The results of my work are likely to significantly affect the lives of other people” and “My job itself is very significant and important in a broader scheme of things” (α = .85).

Job satisfaction

We used the four-item scale developed by Quinn and Shepard (1974) to measure job satisfaction. Sample items include, “If a good friend told me she or he was interested in working in a job like mine we would strongly recommend it” and “All in all, I am very satisfied with my current job” (α = .83).

Emotional exhaustion

The eight-item scale from Maslach and Jackson (1981) was used to measure emotional exhaustion. Sample items include, “I feel emotionally drained from my work” and “I feel frustrated by my job” (α = .90).

Helping behavior

Helping behavior was measured with five items from Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) Altruism scale. Sample items for helping include, “I help others who have been absent” and “I help orient new people even though it is not required” (α = .91).

Voice behavior

Voice behavior was measured with five items adapted from Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Sample items for voice include, “I speak up in this department with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures” and “I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in this department even when my opinion is different and others in the department disagree with me” (α = .92).

Personal initiative

We used the seven-item scale developed by Frese et al. (1997) to measure personal initiative. Sample items include, “I actively attack problems” and “I am particularly good at realizing ideas” (α = .93).

The response format for all items was a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The control variables included gender, age, and tenure.

Findings

Descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities, and correlations are shown in Exhibit 2. Cronbach’s alphas range from .83 to .93, demonstrating good scale reliabilities for all the measurement scales used in this research.

Exhibit 2:

Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Zero-Order Correlations.

Variable		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	Age	28.25	8.51	—
2	Gender	0.48	0.50	.02	—
3	Tenure	2.46	2.51	.45**	.03	—
4	CSR awareness	3.05	0.88	.11	−.06	.27**	.86
5	Task significance	3.50	0.85	.02	−.04	.20**	.23**	.85
6	Job satisfaction	3.60	0.76	−.05	.15*	−.07	.12	.38**	.83
7	Emotional exhaustion	2.57	0.80	−.04	−.11	.06	−.15*	−.16*	−.45**	.90
8	Helping behavior	3.95	0.66	.05	.15*	.1	.20**	.41**	.40**	−.19**	.91
9	Voice behavior	3.57	0.74	.14	.17*	.16*	.25**	.41**	.28**	−.08	.62**	.92
10	Personal initiative	3.84	0.68	.04	.17*	.11	.15*	.42**	.44**	−.15*	.76**	.66**	.93

Note. Bold figures on the diagonal are scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha). Age and Tenure measured in years. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

p < .05. **p < .01.

In an effort to assess the discriminant validity of our key constructs, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses. Results of these confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) are reported in Exhibit 3. We compared the proposed seven-factor model with three theoretically plausible alternative models, including a one-factor model, a two-factor model separating predictor and outcome variables, and a five-factor model in which the behavioral outcome measures were collapsed into a single factor. The results reveal that the seven-factor model shows acceptable fit to the data (normed fit index [NFI] = .85, comparative fit index [CFI] = .88, incremental fit index [IFI] = .88, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .11) and, more importantly, also fits the data significantly better than the alternative models.

Exhibit 3:

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Model	df	χ²	NFI	CFI	IFI	RMSEA	Δχ²
Model 1: Single factor	665	8192.38	.69	.71	.71	.22
Model 2: 2 factors (predictors, outcomes)	664	5723.86	.75	.78	.78	.18	Model 2 vs. Model 1 Δχ²(1) = 2468.52; p < .001
Model 3: 5 factors (CSR awareness, task significance, job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, performance outcomes)	655	3836.02	.81	.81	.84	.15	Model 3 vs. Model 2 Δχ²(9) = 1887.84; p < .001
Model 4: 7 factors (CSR awareness, task significance, job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, helping, voice, personal initiative)	644	2459.04	.85	.88	.88	.11	Model 4 vs. Model 3 Δχ²(11) = 1376.98; p < .001

Note. NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CSR = corporate social responsibility.

To assess the hypothesized mediated model, we applied the widely used Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure. As a first step, we assessed whether CSR awareness was positively related to task significance (our presumed mediator). As shown in Exhibit 4, when controlling for age, gender, and tenure, CSR awareness predicts task significance (β = .18, p < .05). This result provides support for hypothesis 1 and indicates that the first condition of the Baron and Kenny procedure is fulfilled.

Exhibit 4:

Mediation Analysis—Step 1.

Independent Variables	DV: Task Significance
Age	−.10
Gender	−.01
Tenure	.19*
CSR awareness	.18*

Note. Table entries are standardized regression coefficients (betas). DV = dependent variable; CSR = corporate social responsibility.

p < .05. **p < .01.

As a second step, we tested whether CSR awareness predicted the outcome variables (while controlling for age, gender, and tenure), with the results shown in Exhibits 5 and 6 under “Model 1.” As predicted, CSR awareness was positively related to job satisfaction (β = .15, p < .05), helping behavior (β = .21, p < .01), voice behavior (β = .22, p < .01), and personal initiative (β = .16, p < .05), and was negatively related to emotional exhaustion (β = −.19, p < .05).

Exhibit 5:

Mediation Analysis—Steps 2 and 3 for Job Attitudes.

	DV: Job Satisfaction		DV: Emotional Exhaustion
Independent Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2
Age	−.03	.01	−.07	−.08
Gender	.14	.14*	−.10	−.11
Tenure	−.10	−.18*	.13	.17*
CSR awareness	.15*	.07	−.19*	−.16*
Task significance		.43**		−.18*
Type of mediation	Full		Partial

Note. Table entries are standardized regression coefficients (betas). DV = dependent variable; CSR = corporate social responsibility.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Exhibit 6:

Mediation Analysis—Steps 2 and 3 for Behavioral Outcomes.

	Helping Behavior		Voice Behavior		Personal Initiative
DV	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2
Age	−.02	.00	.05	.07	−.04	−.01
Gender	.27*	.17*	.17*	.17*	.20**	.20**
Tenure	.05	−.02	.09	.02	.07	−.01
CSR awareness	.21**	.15*	.22**	.16*	.16*	.09
Task significance		.38**		.36**		.43**
Type of mediation	Partial		Partial		Full

Note. Table entries are standardized regression coefficients (betas). DV = dependent variable; CSR = corporate social responsibility.

p < .05. **p < .01.

The third step in the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure consists of examining a model in which the independent variable (CSR awareness) and the mediator (task significance) are jointly introduced as predictors of an outcome variable. These models are designated as “Model 2” in Exhibits 5 and 6. For mediation to occur, the effect of the independent variable should be reduced in the last step of the analysis. Full mediation occurs if this effect becomes nonsignificant. A reduced but still significant regression coefficient for the independent variable provides evidence for partial mediation.

As shown in Exhibits 5 and 6, the introduction of task significance in Model 2 leads to a reduction in the effect of CSR awareness for every outcome variable.

In the case of job satisfaction (β = .15, p < .05 → β = .07, ns) and personal initiative (β = .16, p < .05 → β = .09, ns), the nonsignificant regression coefficients for CSR awareness provide evidence for full mediation. For emotional exhaustion (β = −.19, p < .05 → β = −.16, p < .05), helping behavior (β = .21, p < .01 → β = .15, p < .05), and voice behavior (β = .22, p < .01 → β = .16, p < .05), the results provide evidence for partial mediation. Taken together, these results provide support for hypotheses 2 through 5.

Discussion

Implications for Theory

From a theoretical perspective, the findings of this research provide support for the notion that corporate engagement in CSR initiatives can have beneficial effects for an important stakeholder group, namely, current employees. Whereas previous research provides evidence for the impact of engagement in CSR on an organization’s financial performance (e.g., Cochran and Wood 1984; Johnson and Greening 1994; McGuire, Sundgren, and Schneeweis 1988), as well as on its reputation and attractiveness in the labor market (e.g., Greening and Turban 2000; Turban and Greening 1996), its impact on the workforce has not been studied to a similar extent. The fact that awareness of CSR initiatives is positively related to discretionary work behaviors (including OCB and personal initiative) and negatively related to emotional exhaustion is of particular relevance to the service industries in general, and the hospitality industry in particular, given the importance of these work behaviors in a service context and the frequent strain put on employees’ emotional resources that are characteristic for the industry.

These results also underscore the importance of task significance as a mediating mechanism in this relationship. When employees are aware of corporate engagement in CSR, they perceive that together with their organization, they can make a positive difference for other people and for the environment. This perception of “meaningful work” plays an important role in transmitting the effect of CSR awareness on the outcomes we studied. These results also underscore the importance of task significance as an important work design variable that has long been neglected by research and has recently benefited from a surge of interest among organizational researchers (Grant 2008).

Limitations

As with all research, this study has a number of limitations. The use of measures obtained from employees may suggest possible concerns about common method bias. Also, the cross-sectional design of our study does not allow for drawing conclusions about causal relationships. Finally, the fact that our sample of employees was drawn from a limited number of establishments of a single organization operating in a single country and a specific segment of the hospitality industry limits the generalizability of our results. Future replications and extensions of this study should attempt to investigate these relationships with multiple measures obtained from different cultural and industry contexts, and, if possible, use a longitudinal design.

Implications for Practice

From the viewpoint of hospitality industry practice, the most important implication of our findings is that when hospitality organizations engage in CSR activities and make their employees aware of these activities, they can reap substantial benefits in terms of improved job attitudes and greater engagement in discretionary work behaviors. This is an important finding because research suggests that engagement in CSR may be driven by the objective of projecting a better image to financial investors, potential customers, or potential employees, or may simply reflect a trend to follow the latest management fashion (Abrahamson and Fairchild 1999), rather than being explicitly focused on promoting outcomes at the level of the organization’s employees. When engagement in CSR is not motivated by an explicit concern for the attitudes and performance of current employees, it is more likely that organizations miss out on multiple opportunities of making their employees aware of ongoing CSR initiatives. However, this study suggests that it is the employees’ awareness of these initiatives that drives results. Observation of CSR practices in the organization under investigation in our study and discussion with managers revealed multiple starting points for thinking about how hospitality businesses can foster greater awareness of corporate CSR initiatives in their employees.

An important facilitating factor for fostering such an awareness seems to be the extent to which CSR initiatives are closely linked to and integrated with the organization’s core business. Employees are more likely to be aware of CSR initiatives that demonstrate a visible impact in their immediate work environment. For instance, a hospitality firm’s engagement in promoting sustainable development through the local sourcing of food products or its pledge to contribute to energy conservation through the systematic use of energy-saving technologies in its properties is more likely to contribute to the employees’ awareness of CSR initiatives than is a development project in a country that is thousands of miles away or a sponsorship of a lofty cultural event. In essence, employees will more readily perceive the organization’s core business as meaningful when they have the opportunity to observe how the organization is doing good in their daily work environment.

A second facilitating factor for greater awareness of CSR initiatives is their degree of “localization.” Engagement in CSR is frequently guided by overarching corporate policies. Greater awareness at the level of the organization’s employees can be achieved when sizable portions of the planning and execution of concrete CSR-related activities are left to lower levels of the hierarchy (i.e., to decision makers in individual hotel properties). For instance, appointing a “local CSR champion” in each property puts a face on the organization’s engagement, facilitates rapid decision-making, fosters widespread participation, and allows recognition and rewarding of special efforts of individual team members.

A related factor is the effective communication of CSR initiatives. It is not sufficient to inform employees by newsletter that the organization is supporting a particular charity. To identify with and derive meaning from CSR initiatives, employees need to be able to understand why a company is engaging in the chosen initiative and how this initiative is contributing to the welfare of others. This requires not only continuity and coherence in the company’s engagement in CSR but also well-orchestrated communication efforts to help employees understand on a continuous basis what drives the organization’s CSR philosophy, what concrete positive impact can be generated through engagement in CSR, and possibly also how employees themselves can contribute to the ongoing success of these initiatives.

Last but not least, awareness of organizational engagement in CSR can be facilitated when CSR initiatives are implemented in such a way that they allow for active participation of employees. Personal involvement fosters a better understanding of what the company is trying to achieve. If the participation in CSR initiatives brings the possibility of direct contact with beneficiaries of these efforts, task significance can be enhanced, direct connection to the daily work can be ensured, and positive effect of the participation can be sustained.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Author Biographies

Steffen Raub is a full professor of organizational behavior at Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Switzerland (steffen.raub@ehl.ch). His research interests include empowerment, organizational citizenship behavior, proactivity, organizational climate, and work design, with a special focus on service industries.

Stephan Blunschi graduated from Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne. He currently works as supply chain manager in international fruit and vegetable sourcing for the leading Swiss retailer MIGROS (stephan.blunschi@mgb.ch).

References

Abrahamson

Fairchild

1999. Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 44:708-40.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173-82.

Bohdanowicz

Zientara

2008. Corporate social responsibility in hospitality: Issues and implications. A case study of Scandic. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 8:271-93.

Boluk

2013. Using CSR as a tool for development: An investigation of the Fair Hotels Scheme in Ireland. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 14:49-65.

Brammer

Millington

Rayton

2007. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18:1701-19.

Calabrese

Lancioni

2008. Analysis of corporate social responsibility in the service sector: Does exist a strategic path? Knowledge and Process Management 15:107-125.

Choi

2011. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in services: Will consumers pay for it? Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceeding 1:1-6.

Cochran

P. L.

Wood

R. A.

1984. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 27:42-56.

Davis

1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal 16:312-22.

10.

Day

Karani

Adler

Nicely

2013. Corporate social responsibility and college recruiting in the hospitality industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 12:71-90.

11.

de los Salmones

Crespo

del Bosque

2005. Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of Business Ethics61:369-85.

12.

Fombrun

Shanley

1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33:233-58.

13.

Frese

Fay

Hilburger

Leng

Tag

1997. The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70:139-61.

14.

Grandey

A. A.

Dickter

D. N.

Sin

H.-P.

2004. The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25:397-418.

15.

Grant

A. M.

2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review 32:393-417.

16.

Grant

A. M.

2008. The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology 93:108-24.

17.

Greening

D. W.

Turban

D. B.

2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality work force. Business and Society 39:254-80.

18.

Griffin

M. A.

Neal

Parker

S. K.

2007. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal 50:327-47.

19.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

1975. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60:159-70.

20.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16:250-79.

21.

2011. CSR and service brand: The mediating effect of brand identification and moderating effect of service quality. Journal of Business Ethics 100:673-88.

22.

Hochschild

A. R.

1983. The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.

23.

Holcomb

J. L.

Upchurch

R. S.

Okumus

2007. Corporate social responsibility: What are top hotel companies reporting? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19:461-75.

24.

Hsin-Hui

Parsa

H. G.

Self

2010. The dynamics of green restaurant patronage. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51:344-62.

25.

Jackson

L. A.

Parsa

H. G.

2009. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A typology for service industries. International Journal of Business Insights and Transformation 2:13-21.

26.

Johnson

R. A.

Greening

D. W.

1994. The effect of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, 222-27.

27.

Jones

Comfort

Hillier

2006. Reporting and reflecting on corporate social responsibility in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18:329-40.

28.

Kechiche

Soparnot

2012. CSR within SMEs: Literature review. International Business Research 5:97-104.

29.

Kraft

K. L.

1991. The relative importance of social responsibility in determining organizational effectiveness: Managers from two service industries. Journal of Business Ethics 10:485-91.

30.

Lane

H. E.

1982. The corporate conscience and the role of business in society. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 23:8-18.

31.

Manson

2006. Hotel groups missing out on benefits of CSR. Caterer and Hotelkeeper 196:6.

32.

Maslach

Jackson

1981. The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior 2:99-113.

33.

McGuire

J. B.

Sundgren

Schneeweis

1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 31:854-72.

34.

Morgeson

F. P.

Humphrey

S. E.

2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology 91:1321-39.

35.

Mullen

2006. CSR: Hotel groups must reap what they sow. Caterer and Hotelkeeper 196:16.

36.

Njite

Hancer

Slevitch

2011. Exploring corporate social responsibility: A manager’s perspective on how and why small independent hotels engage with their communities. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 12:177-201.

37.

Organ

D. W.

1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington: Lexington Books.

38.

Park

S. Y.

Lee

2009. Financial rewards for social responsibility: A mixed picture for restaurant companies. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50:168-79.

39.

Pérez

Rodríguez del Bosque

2012. The role of CSR in the corporate identity of banking service providers. Journal of Business Ethics 108:145-66.

40.

Peterson

D. K.

2004. The relationship between perceptions of corporate citizenship and organizational commitment. Business and Society 43:296-319.

41.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Moorman

R. H.

Fetter

1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 1:107-42.

42.

Poolthong

Mandhachitara

2009. Customer expectations of CSR, perceived service quality and brand effect in Thai retail banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing 27:408-27.

43.

Quinn

Shepard

1974. The 1972-73 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor: Michigan Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research.

44.

Rank

Carsten

J. M.

Unger

J. M.

Spector

P. E.

2007. Proactive customer service performance: Relationships with individual, task, and leadership variables. Human Performance 20:363-90.

45.

Raub

2008. Merck Thailand: The role of “meaning” for work attitudes and behaviors—Executive summary of results (Unpublished report).

46.

Raub

S. P.

Liao

2010. Antecedents and outcomes of proactive customer service: A cross-level model. Poster presented at the 25th Annual SIOP Conference, Atlanta.

47.

Raub

S. P.

Liao

2012. Doing the right thing without being told: Joint effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 97:651-667.

48.

Roethlisberger

F. J.

Dickson

W. J.

1939. Management and the worker. Boston: Harvard University Press.

49.

Romm

J. J.

1994. Lean and clean. New York: Kodansha International.

50.

Rowe

P. D.

Jr.

1986. Opening your minds to community responsibility. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 27: 8.

51.

Rupp

D. E.

Ganapathi

Aguilera

R. V.

Williams

C. A.

2006. Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility:An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27:537-43.

52.

Scherer

Palazzo

2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies 48:899-931.

53.

Solomon

R. C.

Hanson

K. R.

1985. It’s good business. New York: Atheneum.

54.

Stamper

C. L.

Van Dyne

2001. Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22:517-36.

55.

Stuckey

Jones

(1996). Learning social responsibility. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 37:10.

56.

Taylor

F. W.

1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York and London: Harper and Brothers.

57.

Turban

D. B.

Greening

D. W.

1996. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal 40:658-72.

58.

Van Dyne

LePine

J. A.

1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41:108-19.

59.

Vandermerwe

Oliff

M. D.

1990. Customers drive corporations green. Long Range Planning 23:3-9.

60.

Woods

R. H.

Berger

1989. Teaching social responsibility. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 30:61-63.

61.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

J. E.

2001. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review 26:179-201

62.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

J. E.

Debebe

2003. Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior 25:93-135.