Purpose The purpose of this study is to critically synthesize and integrate conceptual and empirical research on the behavioral perspective on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and explain why it is useful and necessary, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors explain why CSR can result in both positive and negative outcomes and provide future research directions and recommendations for practice and policymaking. Design/methodology/approach This study focuses on critical literature review and synthesis. Findings CSR policies in response to COVID-19 are created by organizations but are implemented by individual employees. The way employees perceive and react to CSR actions are key determinants of CSR’s implementation and success. CSR can be embedded within or peripheral to a firm’s core functioning. While embedded CSR is linked to several positive outcomes if correctly implemented together with employees, peripheral CSR is linked to “the dark side” of CSR and can result in negative employee outcomes. Practical implications Using the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors detail types of CSR actions that governments and organizations can implement and their relative effectiveness; why “one size fits all” top-down CSR does not work; how firms can use human resource management practices to re-engage employees through finding meaning in work; and the “dark side” of CSR. Social implications Using the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors detail types of CSR actions that governments and organizations can implement and their relative effectiveness; why “one size fits all” top-down CSR does not work; how firms can use human resource management practices to re-engage employees through finding meaning in work; and the “dark side” of CSR. Originality/value CSR research has focused mostly on why and when firms choose to engage in CSR. A behavioral perspective on CSR facilitates, through an employee-centric conceptual framework, a deeper understanding of when and why employee reactions lead to positive and unintended negative outcomes, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

To achieve impact, academics need to create personal impact development plans, focused on what and on whom to have an impact and the necessary competencies to do so. Profession and university leaders play a critical role in the successful implementation of such plans.

Articles in Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) and elsewhere have argued that international business (IB) is a uniquely complex field. We offer an alternative perspective and evidence that IB is not so uniquely complex compared to organizational behavior, strategic management studies, and entrepreneurship. We argue that viewing IB as uniquely complex is likely a result of what a vast body of social psychology research has uncovered and labeled false uniqueness bias: the tendency for people to believe that they are unique compared to others. We discuss selective accessibility and focalism as underlying psychological mechanisms of this bias. We acknowledge advantages of claiming uniqueness, but argue that it is now more beneficial and realistic to highlight similarities. Doing so will allow IB to import and export theories and methods and thereby make IB borders even more permeable. In turn, increased permeability is likely to lead to further theoretical progress that will benefit IB research, practice, and its positive impact on organizations and society even further. To illustrate advantages of not exaggerating IB’s uniqueness, we use JIBS Decade Award winners as exemplars of studies that are admired and impactful precisely because of their focus on similarities rather than unique complexity.

No abstract